CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Pros and Cons of Returning to a Classic Role
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Pros and Cons of Returning to a Classic Role

post #1 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:31pm
Thread Starter 
The Mad Max 4 thread got me to wonderin'. We all tend to get psyched about the possibility of a (usually) past-their-prime actor returning to a role after more than a decade has passed. I'm curious to hash out why we think this, when most historical evidence points to it being an idea firmly on the side of "iffy." Why do we want people to revisit their seminal roles, when it's likely that it will just sully the film series and turn out badly for all involved? Why do we want Eastwood to come back for one last Dirty Harry when the man is 79 years old??? Why are we clamoring for a 60 year-old Ellen Ripley?

The best example I can think of this working out is Shatner as Kirk in Star Trek II; it worked because it was nicely written to address the age, and seemed unique in that it was a deeper riff on an established character.

The worst example jumping out at me is Michael Corleone; his arc was complete in Part II, and the cartoony King Lear take on the character in Part III wasn't warranted.

I'm curious to hear more examples - the good, the bad, and the ones you still want, along with explanations. Anyone can list shit; 'splain yoself.
Reply
post #2 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:40pm
I was one of the people geeking out over the rumor that GRAN TORINO was going to be a Dirty Harry flick. I'd still like to see a suitable coda. It would be fascinating to observe the character as bitter and old.

Forget Shatner, the king right now is Stallone. Who thought he could pull off ROCKY BALBOA & RAMBO?

I'm still hoping for another Kurt Russell/ Carpenter Jack Burton. The possibilities are endless.
Reply
post #3 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:41pm
Harrison Ford as a geriatric Indy. No matter what they had the character pull off to show he's still "got it" they just couldn't hide how old he really is. Baggy pants, old man stride, the look of a curmudgeon. All the magic and charisma Ford had is officially gone.
Reply
post #4 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:41pm
Stallone made up for ROCKY V 16 years later. He did an amazing job getting the character back to its roots and wrapping the series on a deserved high note. The parallels between the character and Stallone's own career at the time are oddly fascinating.

Same could be said of the return of Rambo twenty years after part 3.

The worst one I recall was Jake Gittes in THE TWO JAKES, but it has been so long since I've seen it that I forget why it sucked. Can't really 'splain myself on that one.
Reply
post #5 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:45pm
In the case of Indiana Jones and to a lesser extent John MCclane I got the impression it was less that Harrison and Bruce really wanted to reprise their roles, and more if I don't reprise my role I know a remake is just around the corner, and I really don't like the idea of someone else being recognized in My signature role.
Reply
post #6 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:45pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
Forget Shatner, the king right now is Stallone. Who thought he could pull off ROCKY BALBOA & RAMBO?

I'm still hoping for another Kurt Russell/ Carpenter Jack Burton. The possibilities are endless.
And yet when they did, we got Escape From LA.

I think people threw a lot of goodwill at Rocky Balboa. It's not the upward move that Shtaner from TOS to Shatner in Trek II was. Stallone started off with an Oscar nominated film. He pulled the franchise out of a nosedive; anything better than Rocky V would have been a win.
Reply
post #7 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
Harrison Ford as a geriatric Indy. No matter what they had the character pull off to show he's still "got it" they just couldn't hide how old he really is. Baggy pants, old man stride, the look of a curmudgeon. All the magic and charisma Ford had is officially gone.
This is interesting, and it's likely that I'm just more generous to Crystal Skull than you all, but I thought that of all the people involved in Indy IV, Ford was the single one that brought his A game. Yes, he's old, but it was the only film in ten years or more where Ford didn't seem to be a parody of himself, including the Golden Globes tonight.

Stallone did a stunning job of not embarassing himself. Well beyond expectations.
Reply
post #8 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
And yet when they did, we got Escape From LA.

I think people threw a lot of goodwill at Rocky Balboa. It's not the upward move that Shtaner from TOS to Shatner in Trek II was. Stallone started off with an Oscar nominated film. He pulled the franchise out of a nosedive; anything better than Rocky V would have been a win.
You're selling Rocky Balboa short. That was a very hard film to make and avoid having it be a huge joke. It really had everything working against it, regardless of it's pedigree. A 60 year old Rocky movie on the heels of an epic career tailspin... that should have been a disaster.
Reply
post #9 of 52
1/17/10 at 11:53pm
Chili Palmer in Be Cool. Travolta was so great and cool in Get Shorty, a genuinely funny and clever movie and a wonderful adaptation. Be Cool was a good book too, but Travolta seemed to forget what made the character work.
Reply
post #10 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post
The parallels between the character and Stallone's own career at the time are oddly fascinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
You're selling Rocky Balboa short. That was a very hard film to make and avoid having it be a huge joke. It really had everything working against it, regardless of it's pedigree. A 60 year old Rocky movie on the heels of an epic career tailspin... that should have been a disaster.
A true underdog story. Meta!
Reply
post #11 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:01am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
You're selling Rocky Balboa short. That was a very hard film to make and avoid having it be a huge joke. It really had everything working against it, regardless of it's pedigree. A 60 year old Rocky movie on the heels of an epic career tailspin... that should have been a disaster.
I liked Balboa, and I liked Stallone in it. I just think many critics, and many of us, were ready and excited to have him redeem the franchise, and extended our hands across that chasm just a bit.
Reply
post #12 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:01am
If we're talking about guys who forgot what the character and the movie was about, does anybody top Ackroyd in Blues Brothers 2000?
Reply
post #13 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:04am
The themes of GRAN TORINO undermine the potential a good deal, but don't you think of all the classic characters to reprise Eastwood's Dirty Harry is at the top of the list?
Reply
post #14 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I liked Balboa, and I liked Stallone in it. I just think many critics, and many of us, were ready and excited to have him redeem the franchise, and extended our hands across that chasm just a bit.
Well, like the fight in RB (and part 1 for that matter), the success isn't about winning (because Rocky doesn't), it's about the heart and the effort. Qualities that I admire in the character. And Stallone brought that to his production I feel.

EDIT: Sort of an odd entry, but classic characters, the ol WB Looney Tunes gang, seemed to have failed to recapture that magic they were known for. Until... Joe Dante understood what made them tick and created a swell tribute in BACK IN ACTION.
Reply
post #15 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:08am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
The themes of GRAN TORINO undermine the potential a good deal, but don't you think of all the classic characters to reprise Eastwood's Dirty Harry is at the top of the list?
Not as Clint approaches 80, no. I think it's fanboy wishwank. They're trying to force an arc where there wasn't much of one, while claiming they want to see the arc "completed."
Reply
post #16 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:21am
Good thread topic and yeah 99 times out of a hundred it's a bad idea, we only want to see it again out of nostalgia for what has gone before, and invariably end up disappointed by the whole affair. Be it Indy, Michael Corleone, Rocky, Snake.

...but then every rule will have its glaring (and stunning) exceptions...

Reply
post #17 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:29am
GREAT example. ^

I'll probably take a lot of shit for this, but that's my fave Scorsese flick.
Reply
post #18 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post

I'm still hoping for another Kurt Russell/ Carpenter Jack Burton. The possibilities are endless.
I'd hate it. What made Big Trouble In Little China so great is that Burton isn't a hero, he's not an anti-hero, he's the sidekick. It was a nice small twist on the usual action riffs.
Reply
post #19 of 52
1/18/10 at 1:52am
People want these roles because people generally just want more of a good thing, even when it's not good for them. Personally, I tend not to get excited about any of these types of situations, because it's usually a stupid, stupid idea, even though I acknowledge that once in a while it produces something worthwhile like Rambo or Rocky 6 or Color of Money (though the best example is Before Sunset). What makes me mad is how excited people get over these things, even when they should know well enough to be cynical, and how even if all signs point to it being bad, there's this idea that you have no choice but to go and see it. I like Indiana Jones as much as the next guy, but I didn't see the last one because it looked awful and I heard nothing but awful things about this. Yet my dumb friends kept saying that, despite the fact it was bad, I needed to see it because "It's Indianna Jones dude!" It seems like that's the general mind-state with fans of the originals, which is sad. Know what I'm not gonna bother to see unless it comes with really hot WOM? Ghostbusters 3, because it will almost certainly blow.
Reply
post #20 of 52
1/18/10 at 1:55am
Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter was definitely the Law of Diminishing Returns played out.
Reply
post #21 of 52
1/18/10 at 1:55am
Z. Vasquez, good points (FYI. Put a paragraph line after every third sentence. looks better)

If the script is good and they get Bill Murry. Ghostbusters 3 could work
Reply
post #22 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
Yet my dumb friends kept saying that, despite the fact it was bad, I needed to see it because "It's Indianna Jones dude!" It seems like that's the general mind-state with fans of the originals, which is sad. Know what I'm not gonna bother to see unless it comes with really hot WOM? Ghostbusters 3, because it will almost certainly blow.
My feeling is that one or more great original films pretty much ensures I'll check out later films, no matter what the word. The reasoning is that I'm a movie fan, and 12 bucks to go see a movie is almost never a waste of time or money. It's a goddamn steal, even for a piece of shit. It's worth 12 bucks to have an opinion on Ghostbusters 3.

The only reason I can think of to not go see it would be Internet cred, which ain't worth 12 bucks. Although, I'm easy. I'll be dropping 12 bucks on the new bald Travolta movie, as like as not.
Reply
post #23 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:17am
That's all well and good, but it poses something of a problem in the larger scheme in that so long as studios can bank on people seeing a film specifically because it's part of a larger property, regardless of it's quality, there's no incentive to a) make it anything other than rote at best and b) put the effort into developing original material. People always complain about Hollywood being creatively bankrupt, but it seems more like audiences are.

Another example: I love, love the original Red Dawn. Love it thoroughly, unironically. I think it deserves more credit for it's themes and execution than it generally gets, and this is coming form someone with the exact opposite political leanings of it's text. My avatar is from the film for chrissakes! I'm probably the exact type of person that the studio is counting on seeing the remake, but despite my love for the property, I'm not going to unless Devin or Alex or Ebert or Beaks and the like give it a glowing goddamn review. I do consider it a waste of time to watch a bad movie, and although I recognize in the bigger picture my seeing it or not won't effect it's outcome, my 12 dollars won't be amongst the money the film pockets.

ETA:sorry if this example is a derail from the point of the thread, but I think when that returning to iconic roles is par and parcel with the climate of remakes going on right now.
Reply
post #24 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
My feeling is that one or more great original films pretty much ensures I'll check out later films, no matter what the word. The reasoning is that I'm a movie fan, and 12 bucks to go see a movie is almost never a waste of time or money. It's a goddamn steal, even for a piece of shit. It's worth 12 bucks to have an opinion on Ghostbusters 3.

The only reason I can think of to not go see it would be Internet cred, which ain't worth 12 bucks. Although, I'm easy. I'll be dropping 12 bucks on the new bald Travolta movie, as like as not.
I really like this reasoning.

I used to be a big snob. Only go to movies which I knew I would like. Not taking any chances. I then went to my first film festival and got blown away by going to see movies I have never heard of. I think there was only one bad movie I saw.
Since then, I'll watch anything. I even go to chick flicks with my wife. I'm surprised sometimes in spite of myself that I will like the odd movie.

I used to get caught up in what was 'cool' with the geeks. I don't listen to that shit anymore. Cinema is a personal experience and everyone comes out with something different.

EDIT: I'm looking forward to GB3 in a nostalgic way. I doubt it will be any good. I'm actually surprised Bill Murray is doing it.
Reply
post #25 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:31am
But it's a bit different when you talk about flagpole franchise movies. That's the exact opposite of going outside of one's comfort zone. You grow up on action movies you take a chance when you watch a musical. You only watch American films, you take a chance on foreign films. New movies, take a chance on classics. All this, and vice versa will likely leave a good viewer surprised.

But what kind of a chance are you taking when you watch Indiana Jones 4, especially when you probably know going in that it's bad, other than it being maybe slightly better thanks to lowered expectations?
Reply
post #26 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
That's all well and good, but it poses something of a problem in the larger scheme in that so long as studios can bank on people seeing a film specifically because it's part of a larger property, regardless of it's quality, there's no incentive to a) make it anything other than rote at best and b) put the effort into developing original material. People always complain about Hollywood being creatively bankrupt, but it seems more like audiences are.
I mean, on the one hand, you're right. It's what leads to bad sequels ad naseum. But I've always felt that was studio concern rather than a creative one. For ejemplo, the Matrix sequels failed because the creative vision behind them failed, not because they were trying to squeeze money. They tried some ballsy and unique things there, and the reason they didn't work falls to overreaching rather than callous disregard. Alternatively, Rocky Balboa and Rambo, as previously mentioned, have all the stink of a studio chasing an easy built in audience, and they ended up redeeming both franchises, because Stallone came out swinging.

And sure, maybe I go easy on Indy IV and Die Hard IV because I grew up with the original characters. But so what? I'd rather see Ford and Willis play those roles than make movies like Extraordinary Measures and the Whole Ten Yards. And it doesn't mean I'm blind. I was as irritated and disgusted by the Star Wars prequels as much as the next guy.

I'm also much less interested in a studio remaking Die Hard than I am in Willis playing the role again. Who would rather see the new version of Spiderman than Spiderman 4, with John Malkovich?

Eh, the main point being, they're just goddamn franchise movies. We're not seeing characters like Travis Bickle get watered down.
Reply
post #27 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I liked Balboa, and I liked Stallone in it. I just think many critics, and many of us, were ready and excited to have him redeem the franchise, and extended our hands across that chasm just a bit.
I actually agree that Balboa isn't really a slam dunk. But I love the crap out of it. And I didn't grow up with the movies at all. I only saw the first Rocky movie while I was in college. And maybe saw a part of the fourth one on TV.

Balboa isn't even really a movie in a traditional sense. It really felt like a series of Stallone giving speech after speech to people who needed a pick-me-up until it came time for an obligatory fight. But damn it all, if it didn't all work for me.

And so it feels like a slam dunk. Because we want it to be. The movie wasn't embarrassing and it let the character go out with dignity. It's no Wrath of Khan, but it's still worlds better than being utterly mediocre like Indy4.
Reply
post #28 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:51am
But we're also not seeing too many characters like Travis Bickle getting made at all (alright, maybe that's a bad example considering last year produced both Big Fan and Observe and Report), not by studios at least. And I'd be fine with leaving that mantle to indipendant cinema if it wasn't such a hard time for those to get produced.

Personally, I'd rather not see either of those Spidermans. Ideally, I'd like to see Raimi make films like Drag Me to Hell and A Simple Plan, and Malkovic to be in movies like Burn After Reading or Being J.M. Or hell, even Beowulf (which I love), just to show that I'm not intentionally being a snob. Something where, even in the case of that last movie, it comes with a recognizable name, is still not the fourth or fifth iteration of something that's come before.

Herein lies my rationale: when you go into Die Hard 4 or Indy 4 or whatever, you pretty much know what's going to happen. Same with a franchise that's generally still new, like Spiderman. The heroes are gonna fight some bad guys, they're gonna win. It's one thing to be excited by something like Iron Man 2 (which, though I'm not particularly excited about, I do want to see), because the characters are still fresh and haven't worn out their welcome. But I guarantee that I won't be excited by the time Iron Man 4 comes out or twenty years down the line Downey talks about being in Son of Iron Man.

It's a bit different with something like Color of Money or Before Sunset where you really don't know what direction the films will take.

Again, I'm not claiming that this is exact science, as Rambo and the last Rocky prove that even without reinventing your story you can still make something worthwhile, but those are rare exceptions. Plus, it's not like either of those movies came with the same budget that the next Indy movie will, so they could afford to shake things up a bit.
Reply
post #29 of 52
1/18/10 at 2:58am
One small thing I loved about Balboa was that it was rated PG. I don't know why, but that tickles me. Would that be an example of a lower budget being used to shake things up? Because if it were a more hugely anticipated movie, I feel like a studio wouldn't mind bumping that up to a PG-13 since PG makes people assume that something is tame.
Reply
post #30 of 52
1/18/10 at 3:08am
Yeah, actually that's probably the case. In the same way that because the last Rambo was also more modestly budgeted than the other examples of this type of thing, it was essentially the exact opposite of the gentle Rocky film, in that it was a fucking splatterfest the type of which you generally associate with a Troma movie.

If either of those movies had been made during the periods in which the properties were hot, they would have probably come out different--Rocky Balboa would have been a lot flashier and action packed, and Rambo would have been watered down.

This is due to stock in the properties dropping. Indiana Jones is gonna be Indiana Jones no matter what, so I think you're not gonna see something like that return with any sort of grace. Or gore.
Reply
post #31 of 52
1/18/10 at 3:11am
When it comes down to the state of Hollywood, I have to admit that I don't feel we're particularly ill-served by what's available. Sure, giant movies often turn out as appalling as the Transformers movie, but more films are getting released than ever before, and there's always room for a fresh voice to emerge with something outstandingly new, in just about any genre. District 9, Inglourious Bastards, Observe and Report, In the Loop, Hurt Locker, Moon, Where the Wild Things Are, Fantastic Mr Fox and Antichrist are all fresh fucking movies that came out this year.

I hear you on wanting to see a director like Raimi stretch and make Simple Plan and Drag Me to Hell, but in the end, he did make those movies. Odds are, he'll make more movies like that. You're not wrong, incidentally, and Brian Singer is a good example of someone chewed up by huge studio films to some degree, but there'll always be room for new and creative, even if they have to coexist alongside big, leaden and obvious.

The point here is the franchise films though, and the standards I apply to them are about as different as can be from, say, Precious. Repetition, even outright plagiarism, of previous glories is great when diverted, but it can also be a set formula to work within. There's a reason beyond nostalgia that so many great directors have stated they'd love to have a crack at a James Bond film, and Devin's recently said similar things about the varying degrees of success within the rigid formula of the Slasher genre. Having a familiar framework, as many third or fourth sequels do, allows a director to use all his skill to make what's old new again. I'll acknowledge this rarely results in a great film, but again, different set of expectations, and different things to appreciate. Plus, just 12 bucks! It's enough to make me go see Legion.
Reply
post #32 of 52
1/18/10 at 3:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post
When it comes down to the state of Hollywood, I have to admit that I don't feel we're particularly ill-served by what's available. Sure, giant movies often turn out as appalling as the Transformers movie, but more films are getting released than ever before, and there's always room for a fresh voice to emerge with something outstandingly new, in just about any genre. District 9, Inglourious Bastards, Observe and Report, In the Loop, Hurt Locker, Moon, Where the Wild Things Are, Fantastic Mr Fox and Antichrist are all fresh fucking movies that came out this year.
This is pretty much the way I feel. I don't think I've ever complained about there being nothing to see in a given year. There's always something interesting to see or look forward to if you search actively or come to sites like CHUD.

But actually, this year was pretty nice. Bonus!
Reply
post #33 of 52
1/18/10 at 4:28am
There's always going to be good stuff to see, but I don't think that should function as an excuse to excuse big budget franchise stuff when it's rote or even bad. I'm not saying every film should be viewed in the same way. Clearly expectations are different going into a Australian exploitation film and a French new wave film, but I think you're still hoping for a unique experience either way. Your still hoping to be surprised and maybe even wowed.

It seems that with films that fall under the category for this thread though--your new Indy's, your new Die Hards, etc, your going in even without those modest expectations. It's one thing to go into the new James Bond movie if it looks good, but people will go into it even if that's not the case, just because it's James Bond. To me, that's lowering expectations way too much and rewarding mediocrity.
Reply
post #34 of 52
1/18/10 at 4:30am
This thread made me put on Rocky Balboa. Hahaha.
Reply
post #35 of 52
1/18/10 at 4:53am
So good did come of it. Makes me want to watch The Color Of Money.
Reply
post #36 of 52
1/18/10 at 5:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
It seems that with films that fall under the category for this thread though--your new Indy's, your new Die Hards, etc, your going in even without those modest expectations. It's one thing to go into the new James Bond movie if it looks good, but people will go into it even if that's not the case, just because it's James Bond. To me, that's lowering expectations way too much and rewarding mediocrity.
This brings us back to my original point, which is that I'm okay with rewarding mediocrity. It's not my job to punish Hollywood's excesses, and again, it's rare that I go to the movies and get nothing out of it. I don't even regret Surrogates. The truth is, I like not liking a movie sometimes.

If something legitimately doesn't interest me (oh, Fast & Furious, lets say), I'll skip it. But I probably wouldn't have a real problem going to it either.
Reply
post #37 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:29pm
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=mcnooj82;2810710]Balboa isn't even really a movie in a traditional sense.

I agree somewhat, but I think I'm paraphrasing a review from this site when I say that as much as I enjoyed the result, Rambo is BARELY a movie.

Quote:
The movie wasn't embarrassing and it let the character go out with dignity. It's no Wrath of Khan, but it's still worlds better than being utterly mediocre like Indy4.
There's definitely a spectrum of success within the results. But when one of the best examples we come up with is Rambo, I think it's interesting to discuss how "healthy" it is for film in general to serialize classic characters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
People always complain about Hollywood being creatively bankrupt, but it seems more like audiences are.
I've been talking about this lately, and I think it's definitely a concern. Dismissing our trash-watching because "they'll keep making great movies" is all well and good, but if you're not watching those great movies because Ghostbusters 2 is on and hey, it's not THAT bad, aren't you costing yourself something?

I'm not judging or preaching, just sharing where I'm coming from. I've been preoccupied with getting older lately, and just as I find I'm less and less inclined to gorge myself on a beloved movie I've seen a half dozen times already, I'm finding I'm less patient about sequels and revisits. There's just too many films I'm never going to get to, and there's a fucking century's worth that have either risen to the top, clung onto the sides, or slipped through the cracks. My OCD is such that I fear missing out on one of those gems because I spent another two hours on a superhero sequel. Then (if you're lucky) there's life on top of all that, so it's a finite amount of time I'm looking at; do I want to just gaze into the same puddle over and over or do I want to explore and see what else is out there?

And I'm not talking "prestige" or anything, I'm talking about choosing the familiar over the new and unexplored (I'm currently enjoying the hell out of trashy 70s Eurocrime flicks, which is roughly an 80% slog with some insane rewards within). It's not about being obscure for obscurity's sake, or some kind of hipster cred (I'm way too old for that one). I just want to see things I've never seen before. (cue El Aura joke from Tati)
Reply
post #38 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:38pm
You can do something new and unexplored with a familiar character, it's just that no one's going to greenlight a Dirty Harry film where he spends his retirement filled with remorse over his violent past. It was the argument I always brought up in defending Alien 3 when people complained about Ripley dying -- what's worse, the character dying a noble death of her own choosing in a story we hadn't really seen yet, or getting recycled in sequel after sequel to keep fighting aliens? I think Alien Resurrection answered that question.
Reply
post #39 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
The themes of GRAN TORINO undermine the potential a good deal, but don't you think of all the classic characters to reprise Eastwood's Dirty Harry is at the top of the list?
Eastwood already revisited his iconic character in UNFORGIVEN.
Reply
post #40 of 52
1/18/10 at 12:48pm
That's a different kettle of fish there. I can definately see where you're coming from in loing interest in seeing movies over and over as I get older. Ten years ago, there'd be a dozen or more DVDs I'd be buying from this year, now there's one. I just realized I never watched 95% of the ones I have.

And I do feel the sting of the hundreds of movies I've never seen. That Scorsese montage last night reminded me that for someone I consider the greatest living director, I have a bunch of gaps in my catalogue. The thing is, though, I'm never going to see all the great ones, an I'm probably not going to make much of a dent on the list. My netflix queue attests to this. The first new years resolution I screwed the pooch on this year was watch a classic film a week. It's become 1 a month.

I think, ultimately, why I'm content to pay for Bruce Willis's latest dreck is that I'm a sucker for movie theaters, even shitty ones. I'd always rather go to one than rent. I live in New York, and we have some great revival houses, and this thread and your post have reminded me I could spend some more time at them, so thanks. But also, when it comes down to it, the reunion tour franchise movies you're talking about come so few and far between, like maybe two a year, that I can generally allot the investment. Plus, I've always got someone who really wants to go to those, and I'm terrible at saying no on principle.
Reply
post #41 of 52
1/18/10 at 1:09pm
Rambo IS barely a movie.

But in this case, I think its barebones simplicity really worked in its favor. In the several years where every action adventure blockbuster was desperately trying to carve out a continuity/mythology in order to serialize/sequelize/trilogize/franchise, they became so unwieldy and overlong. Balboa and Rambo, in addition to hopefully being the last dignified hurrahs for the characters, went the opposite path and kept things ridiculously simple and satisfyingly short. Exactly as long as they needed to be. Because we all know, neither of those movies couldn't bear being any longer.

And Phil... as you already know... you're never gonna catch up. There's always gonna be more! More! MORE! I sorta had that realization when I was still in college and kinda decided to just let it be. You're a much stalwart cinephile than I.
Reply
post #42 of 52
1/18/10 at 1:37pm
Thread Starter 
Well, it's not a contest or anything. I guess I'm just becoming more and more curious what we learn about ourselves in the course of our cinephilia.
Reply
post #43 of 52
1/18/10 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrid View Post
In the case of Indiana Jones and to a lesser extent John MCclane I got the impression it was less that Harrison and Bruce really wanted to reprise their roles, and more if I don't reprise my role I know a remake is just around the corner, and I really don't like the idea of someone else being recognized in My signature role.
Look at what to Terminator without Arnie. People didn't care.
Reply
post #44 of 52
1/18/10 at 1:45pm
Taking what mcnooj82 has just said about the simplicity of a character is what makes me relatively gung ho about seeing Gibson back in the role of Mad Max or having no Mad Max at all. The role of Max is all quiet intensity, that's the gist of it, and unless Miller and Gibson want to go in a different direction, I'm fairly confident that they could pull off a grizzled, middle aged Max just fine. A two-fisted, sexagenarian globetrotter is I think, a harder sell than a mean ass ex-cop / gearhead. Hell, The Road Warrior makes a point of showing an older Max.

All that said, I'm not all that interested in seeing the return of a franchise or a character if the ship sailed oh so many years ago. If Mad Max 4 never gets made, I won't lose any sleep.
Reply
post #45 of 52
1/18/10 at 8:15pm
I'm wondering if this desire is at all generational, or heavily influenced by serials, television, comics, etc. Serialized fiction has the populace trained to ask "What's next?" every season, every week, and even after every commercial break.
Reply
post #46 of 52
1/19/10 at 12:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis View Post
I'm still hoping for another Kurt Russell/ Carpenter Jack Burton. The possibilities are endless.
'Big Trouble in Little Italy' practically writes itself!
Reply
post #47 of 52
9/29/10 at 2:51am
Thread Starter 
Bumping this and contradicting myself and being a total douchebag hypocrite and saying that now more than ever, I want to see Mel Gibson play a grizzled, 55 year old Mad Max one more time. I know that ship has sailed and they've had press conferences unveiling the V8 Interceptor (which got blowed up in Road Warrior, but okay) and all that, but certainly Gibson's own narrative would bring something to the proceedings. I'd love to see him run back to Australia to George Miller's bosom and deliver a final action masterpiece.
Reply
post #48 of 52
9/29/10 at 3:18am
So would I, because let's face it, if his final "action"-y film is EDGE OF DARKNESS, then that's a sad whimper to go out on.
Reply
post #49 of 52
9/29/10 at 3:20am
Thread Starter 
Yeah, his final action film should have some action.
Reply
post #50 of 52
9/29/10 at 3:54am
While I understand the sentiment, I reckon Millers right to cast an actor people actually want to see in movies these days as Max rather than returning with an actor no one cares about these days outside of vague pity and/or ghoulish fascination for their tabloid exploits.

...and I freely say this as a huge fan of Millers Max films and a once fanatical devotee of the work of Mr.Gibson
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › The Pros and Cons of Returning to a Classic Role