Richard Stark a.k.a. Donald E. Westlake - Page 5

good post Travis Bickle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

The mirror showing someone who doesn't back down.
Wow.

   That's your comment?  That's brilliant.  How about the larger picture?  That some people have alternative opinions, and should feel safe and free of being villified for letting them be known?  How many times during our "discussion" did I stop and just say Forget it, let's move on, and someone had to spring back with another snarky comment with insinuations about my character?  Cameron mentioned his doubts about reverse racism and I decided to dredge up ancient and painful memories to point out there may be no reverse racism, but there is certainly cases of people who are supposedly "in power" being hated for the color of their skin, and I was one of them.

   Did that get any rounds of sympathy?  No, Lauren used that to espouse I was manipulating the conversation.  Did Cameron, a self-professed Christian have words of sympathy, or doubt if his earlier comments could be wrong?  No, he jumped to a person's defense who wasn't being attacked--I was, but not a single person found Lauren's comments derisive or unsound, even after I responded with a measure of affection that her life was harsh in it's own ways.

   Please.  This is the biggest lie about so called- "enlightened and modern intellectuals".  They are as dogmatic about what they believe as the strictist, most whack-a-doo churchgoer in Westboro, Memphis, or Arkansas or wherever Fred Phelps comes from.  Because I do not believe a character's race should be arbitrarily changed in a film adaptation, or if they should, it should be a fair thing where ALL races get intermingled, that upset certain left-wing ideas and sentiments, and that caused me to become the guy with the bullseye painted on my back.

   And the larger picture is, even if you DON'T believe what I do, what if the next time a topic comes up that YOU have a minority and unfamiliar opinion on?  Will you shut up and go with the status quo, or will you speak your mind and not back down?  Be willing to agree to disagree, and have respect for alternative viewpoints, surely, but not concede an inch that you are wrong just because 99% believe you are.

   As a final note, I thought we were moving on here?  I haven't commented on Cameron or Lauren... I am 100% ready to live and let live--they don't bother me, I don't bother them. If they decided to forget and forgive, I would do so in a heartbeat.  I'm not the initiator of the blocking-- They blocked me, I blocked them.  Super.  But yet we're still talking about this stupid shit.  Stupid because I repeatedly wanted to move on but here we are, discussing the same old shit.

   Yeah, I looked in the mirror Parker put up and I liked what I see.  My only regret would be backing down and altering my tone on some of my comments so as not too appear insensitive, but the jist of what I wrote I still believe in 100%.

   Parker--you eemed like a reasonable person, and I responded reasonably to you.  How do I respond to McNoo or Jake?  They're intent on resurrecting dead subjects.  As is whomever is that I have blocked but is still bandying my name about is a desultory fashion.  So I ask you... Who is really the whiner and cry baby?

   I like what I see in the mirror.

   Remember what Christ said, Let those without sin cast the first stone,

   And Worry not, before they hated you they hated me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake 

good post Travis Bickle

   You're an ass, man.  You have that right.  :-)

Does your reflection have a serious persecution complex as well?

Jennifer Lopez being in it pretty much guarantees it'll be terrible and I really like Statham

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Does your reflection have a serious persecution complex as well?

 

   Not that I'm aware of, but opinions vary.;-)  I ain't God's most perfect creature, THAT'S for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NathanW 

Jennifer Lopez being in it pretty much guarantees it'll be terrible and I really like Statham

   Well, Nathan, think back to films like The Cell, An Unfinished Life, Wine and Roses, U-Turn...

   These are all movies Lopez gave an excellent performance in.  if by excellence in acting, we mean the performance was good enough to trick us into believing Lopez was in fact those characters, then yes, I'd say she has given excellent performances.  But to what degree was her success the film's director, and script writer's, contributions?  I mean, the best actress can look shoddy reading trite, stale dialogue, and the reverse is true I'm sure.

   All in all, I like Statham but not quite sure if he can pull of Parker, a dude who is laconic and non-flamboyant to the extreme.  Statham may in fact do it, and I'd love to see him hit a grand slam because that means we get many sequels.  I know from a source close to the estate there are more Westlake properties in various stages of planning and pre-production, a film version of Kahawa for one, so if the Statham film does well, that means we could see a large slate of DEW films.  As happened when Grisham became a sensation.

   Btw, nathan, thanks for sticking to the topic and avoiding piling on.  You and Parker and Bucho have gone up several notches in my estimation.

Well, it has Nick Nolte in it and that's the closest I'll ever get to seeing Nolte as Parker.
 

Nolte as Parker, even maybe 15 years ago, but really say circa 48 Hours would have been slam-dunk awesome.  Big, gruff, meaty.  Dye his hair black like they did in Q and A and you would have a superb Parker.

 You do know Nolte is playing Hurley, don't you?  Hurley appears in a few of the books.  Plunder Squad, Butcher's Moon and Flashfire.  What's weird is Hurley has been tranformed into Claire's father.  Where the heck did that come from.

 That's what I mean about Hollywood arbitrarily changing things.  Why?  Claire's parents were never a part of the books.  Hell, Parker's parents weren't part of the books.

  Hollywood usually has little concern with sticking to the source material.  In some cases, it can not be helped because the source material is drivel.  Jaws would be a good example.  Spielberg was correct to drop the mafia subplot and Hooper Ellen romance.

   But why fuck with Westlake?  he could out write 100% of Hollywood's best talent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave618 

 

 

   This is the guy we all admired?

 

   Knowledgeable about Crime fiction, sure.  But  can't call out a girl he likes on her bullshit.  The whole thing could have been quashed when I offered her an Olive branch.  Instead I got more hatespeak.  He could have kept out of it, or said a word in my defense.  Instead he follows her down the road to insanity.  I notice when people don't like when you call them on their shit, they "block" you.

 

   I just lost all respect for a dude I thought ws a friend.

 

   As for Lauren, i am now conviced her issues with changing races when casting adaptations comes from a sick, dark place based on hatred for people not like her.  She is the opposite of me.

You seem profoundly unwell.

He ain't God's most perfect creature, Jake. 

CAN'T YOU READ????

Lauren, why do you have a sick, dark hatred of people not like you? Is it just white people or all others not exactly like you? Is it just the males of our species? ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

And if he's not a perfect creature of God and is the exact opposite of you, does that make you God's Special Little Perfect Snowflake?

Wow. I must have missed that post. Wow. 

He forgot to fill back up on his Christian Reserve.

Now, before anyone thinks I'm persecuting the Christian...

I HAVE TONS OF CHRISTIAN FRIENDS.

TONS.

(AUTOMATIC IMMUNITY FROM CRITICISM!!!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave618 

 

   Dude, Made in USA SUCKED.  

MADE IN USA is what it is, mid-60s Godard moving into a Marxist phase. It can be tedious at times, but some of the visuals (and Anna Karina) are stunning.

Also, it's closer to The Jugger than most people think. If you've read the novel and remember it well, the film can be fascinating  -- it comes off like a subtle parody of Westlake's story.

Westlake himself proved in court that all but one (!) of the scenes was taken from the novel: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117913463/?refcatid=13&printerfriendly=true

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

He forgot to fill back up on his Christian Reserve.

 

Now, before anyone thinks I'm persecuting the Christian...

 

I HAVE TONS OF CHRISTIAN FRIENDS.

 

TONS.

 

(AUTOMATIC IMMUNITY FROM CRITICISM!!!)

I liked that his olive branch was him strongly implying (just short of actually saying) that Lauren has a problem with men because she's a lesbian and then saying he'd pray for her.

Hey Cameron? 

Drop it already.

This is like the worst fucking circlejerk of internet tough-guyism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malmordo 

Hey Cameron? 

 

Drop it already.

Sorry.

Remember when everyone was cool and talking about crime books?

Stupid Richard Stark ruining everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

Remember when everyone was cool and talking about crime books?

 

Stupid Richard Stark ruining everything.

I blame Donald Westlake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Come on down to da bar and say dat!!!
COME ON DOWN!!!

Is the bar in a rough neighborhood?

Without the benefit of reading blocked posts, I can't reply to what Cameron or Lauren are saying (I'm assuming it's one or both of them keeping this alive, since they are the only ones I have blocked).

I refuse to peek and see what they're up to, because I went back and forth on this once too many times with them.  I wish them well, there are still many things about them I personally like, and I am indeed sorry if some of my comments were misconstrued and hurt their feelings, but I'm here to talk about Stark and Parker.

If someone could pass this comment on to them:

The world is a big place.  Chud is a big community.  Obviously I am not in your favor right now, which I gladly accept and understand.  So just move on.  Allow me the dignity and grace to believe what I choose, and say what I choose, and I will allow you the same. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malmordo 

Hey Cameron? 

 

Drop it already.

   Thanks Malmordo.  Don't know what he's saying, and I refuse to read any more of his posts, but I appreciate you just trying to get everyone to move on to the next page.

   This is boring me to tears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malmordo 

MADE IN USA is what it is, mid-60s Godard moving into a Marxist phase. It can be tedious at times, but some of the visuals (and Anna Karina) are stunning.

 

Also, it's closer to The Jugger than most people think. If you've read the novel and remember it well, the film can be fascinating  -- it comes off like a subtle parody of Westlake's story.

 

Westlake himself proved in court that all but one (!) of the scenes was taken from the novel: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117913463/?refcatid=13&printerfriendly=true

   Hmm.  It didn't hit the neccessary buttons for me to consider it a true adaptation of The Jugger, nor was it a pleasurable experience of a film-viewing variety.  But I'm glad you liked it, Malmordo, proves that fans of the novels can like different takes on Parker, which is something I am cool with.  Anna Karina is not my type.  Out of all the women in any Stark adaptation, I'm favorable to Lopez in the new film, Karen Black and Joanna Cassidy in The Outfit.  Remember Cassidy in Blade Runner?  Wow, she was hot in that.  She played the cyborg with the Python.  Most friends I've discussed the film with always babble about Darryl Hannah, but I'll take Cassidy anyday over her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

Remember when everyone was cool and talking about crime books?

 

Stupid Richard Stark ruining everything.

   Not Stark, Ska (I know you're being playful here) but ego ruins everything.  Always. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake 

You seem profoundly unwell.

   Thanks.  From you, I'll take that as a compliment.:-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malmordo 

MADE IN USA is what it is, mid-60s Godard moving into a Marxist phase. It can be tedious at times, but some of the visuals (and Anna Karina) are stunning.

 

Also, it's closer to The Jugger than most people think. If you've read the novel and remember it well, the film can be fascinating  -- it comes off like a subtle parody of Westlake's story.

 

Westlake himself proved in court that all but one (!) of the scenes was taken from the novel: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117913463/?refcatid=13&printerfriendly=true

   Thanks for that link to Variety, Malmordo.  I was pleased to see Westlake was a fan of Pillaged (Mise a Sac).

   However, Westlake's favorite French adaptation is Alain Cavalier's 1967 pic "Pillaged" (based on the novel "The Score"). "It never got imported into the U.S., so I only saw it in French, which I don't speak, but I figured I knew the story well enough," Westlake laughs. "I thought it was really well done, it was a tough noir, the way a tough noir should be, not overdoing it. I think when the French get it wrong, it's by injecting art into it."

Westlake may have been correct when he said PILLAGED! never played theatrically in the U.S. But there was an English-language version prepared by United Artists, retitled MIDNIGHT RAID, that was submitted to the MPAA for a rating (it received a G, surprisingly). You can find UA's posters for MIDNIGHT RAID with a simple Google search and the record of it being rated at the MPAA website.

But I've never found any U.S. newspaper ads or reviews for it. Strange. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malmordo 

Westlake may have been correct when he said PILLAGED! never played theatrically in the U.S. But there was an English-language version prepared by United Artists, retitled MIDNIGHT RAID, that was submitted to the MPAA for a rating (it received a G, surprisingly). You can find UA's posters for MIDNIGHT RAID with a simple Google search and the record of it being rated at the MPAA website.

 

But I've never found any U.S. newspaper ads or reviews for it. Strange. 

   Me and a dude over on IMDB are obsessing over this film on the Parker page.  He mentioned it played in France last April in a Cavilier retrospective.  So there are prints available, obviously.  It's just a matter of generating the interest and having it transferred to DVD.  I hate to say it but I'd much rather see Pillaged/Midnight Raid/Mise a Sac than the Statham film.  Westlake's praise, plus the fact Constantin looks like he stepped out of the novel itself make this film a Holy Grail with me.

   Interestingly enough, Darwyn Cooke used a still image from Pillaged for his variant cover to The Score.  The shot of a dude in a ski-mask. 

   The owner of the Violentworldofparker.com, Trent, has stated after thie new film opens he's going to make some attempts to track down the copyright owner.  I've already committed my help, financial and logistical, to help this thing get done.  Parker fans need to view this film.  It could very well be the best of all of them.

TMC (Turner Movie Classics) is showing The Split, which is based on The Seventh, Wednesday at six am.  Jim Brown stars as MacLain, which is the Parker character in this one.  He'd been called Walker in Point Blank, and would only be actually named Parker in the upcoming Statham film, which of course I'll be seeing on the 25th.

Lots of mixed reviews for this one; some think it an interesting little late 60's noir, while others think it's definitely one of the worst of the Parker adaptations (generally speaking, Point Blank and The Outfit are usually cited as the best American Stark adaptations, and Mise a Sac (Pillaged) was Westlake's favorite French adaptation of any of his works.  Westlake considered Duvall's performance in The Outfit as the closest thing to what he created.  Duvall is physically all wrong for Parker; Parker is a big man with dark hair while Duvall is medium-sized and, well, bald, but he does seem to bring some of that cold-blooded ruthlessness to the role.

Dave, are you still on this?   I still don't get why it's okay to make Parker, a tall American with hair, into a short bald Englishman.   Why are racial changes, in particular, so much of a deal breaker for you?   This new movie makes enormous changes, to the character, to the story--it's not at all what Westlake intended.

Now suppose somebody did a letter-perfect adaptation of the same boo "Parker" is based on, and cast Denzel Washington as Parker?  Tall, American, has hair.   Everything other than his skin color (which I really don't remember Donald Westlake ever dwelling on much--in fact, show me one passage in any of the 24 books where Parker's skin color is mentioned)--exactly as Westlake intended.  But for you, that would be a terrible movie, because it would mean you couldn't identify with Parker--couldn't project yourself into him.   You can't identify with a black protagonist--you might root for him, admire him, but he couldn't be your surrogate.   And that's what you are into Parker for--he's doing all the things you can't.   That's how it comes across, anyway.   And fine--if that's how you feel, there's no shortage of action heroes who are white, though none of them look the least bit like you.   Knock yourself out.   But some of us care more about getting the storyteller's points across, and Westlake wasn't writing about race in the Parker books.  Parker finds race irrelevant.   He doesn't feel any closer to white people than black people.   He sees all people as alien.  He's a minority of one.  So while I'd prefer a very accurate faithful adaptation of the books, once they start making major changes, I stop caring what color Parker is.   Okay? 

Dave, I wouldn't say I was obsessing over Mise a Sac.   I'd like to see it, but I doubt it'll end up on my list of 10 best French crime thrillers.   YOU, otoh, are definitely obsessing over it, and it makes no sense.  Parker is no more French than he is black, but this guy is your ideal Parker?  

Anyway, I think I found a European actor who'd be even better--he didn't make a lot of movies, and he never became a leading man (but then, neither did Constantin). 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgurdcr3MG1qzbmoo.png

The guy on the right is the great Lino Ventura, who would have been a natural for any Stark adaptation, but I'm talking about the guy on the left--Stan Krol.   Polish.   If you ever get the chance, Netflix a film called "Classe Tous Risques". 

I mean, it's all meaningless, since we're talking about actors who are either dead or long past the age they could play this type of role.   Point is, back when the novels were first being written, there were a lot of guys who could have played Parker well.   These days, I just don't see any. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave618 

Nolte as Parker, even maybe 15 years ago, but really say circa 48 Hours would have been slam-dunk awesome.  Big, gruff, meaty.  Dye his hair black like they did in Q and A and you would have a superb Parker.

 

 You do know Nolte is playing Hurley, don't you?  Hurley appears in a few of the books.  Plunder Squad, Butcher's Moon and Flashfire.  What's weird is Hurley has been tranformed into Claire's father.  Where the heck did that come from.

 

 That's what I mean about Hollywood arbitrarily changing things.  Why?  Claire's parents were never a part of the books.  Hell, Parker's parents weren't part of the books.

 

  Hollywood usually has little concern with sticking to the source material.  In some cases, it can not be helped because the source material is drivel.  Jaws would be a good example.  Spielberg was correct to drop the mafia subplot and Hooper Ellen romance.

 

   But why fuck with Westlake?  he could out write 100% of Hollywood's best talent.

I did not know that (Nolte's character wasn't named in the IMDb credits last time I checked), but Hurley isn't really IN Flashfire--he's a plot device, who appears very briefly in a flashback, to explain why Parker is working with the guys who stiff him, thus kicking off the plot.   He's not Parker's mentor, and honestly he's not a particularly memorable character in the series--so different from the Nolte character that honestly they have nothing in common but the name.  They always do this--feel like they have to keep making up extra backstory, which is the antithesis of the Stark ethos, where you tell people just what they need to know, and nothing more.   "Okay audience, this is who this Hurley guy is--he's Parker's girlfriend's father, and he taught Parker everything he knows, and he's going to dispense advice from a distance, and we cast Nick Nolte to play him, even though you don't need a Nick Nolte for a throwaway role like this."    

This film sounds more like standard Hollywood rubbish, the more I learn about it.  

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/parker_2012/

Looking worse with each new review.

Why, I ask you, WHY, won't they just TRY doing a straight adaptation?    Just to see how it works?   Just to relieve the monotony?  

I mean, they did a very faithful adaptation of "The Killer Inside Me", one of the darkest and sickest crime genre books ever written.   It wasn't a very good movie overall (casting was way off), but it stayed pretty close to Jim Thompson's novel.   And it got better reviews than this movie is getting.   And they only spent 13mil on it.    I doubt they lost any more money on it than they will on this.

Donald Westlake himself did a very well-reviewed adaptation of another bleak Thompson novel, "The Grifters."   He changed some things, but he was true to the spirit of the book.  He got an Oscar nomination for that.   Of course, that didn't do great box office either.

So I guess the thinking was they'd rather make money than a good movie.

Only I doubt they are going to make money with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pisher 

 

So I guess the thinking was they'd rather make money than a good movie.

 

Only I doubt they are going to make money with this.

Well, um, duh. 

There will never be a mainstream crime film where Parker is portrayed as the sociopath he is in the books. Sadly, general audiences have this thing where they feel they have to "like" a character in order to find him interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

Well, um, duh. 

 

There will never be a mainstream crime film where Parker is portrayed as the sociopath he is in the books. Sadly, general audiences have this thing where they feel they have to "like" a character in order to find him interesting.

Yeah, they really play up the code bullshit and even call him a good guy in the latest trailers. It's giving me hives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pisher 

 

Donald Westlake himself did a very well-reviewed adaptation of another bleak Thompson novel, "The Grifters."   He changed some things, but he was true to the spirit of the book.  He got an Oscar nomination for that.   Of course, that didn't do great box office either.

 

So I guess the thinking was they'd rather make money than a good movie.

 

Only I doubt they are going to make money with this.

At least The Grifters is remembered quitely fondly more than 20 years later. 

Pisher, or should I say Chris, since that's who I've known you as for more than 2 years, I have no problem with a black actor playing Parker.  I made that abundently clear in my earlier posts.  I stated if you are a purist and want a purist-type adaptation, Parker'd have to be a white dude, and it's have to be set in the same time period as the book was, and the actor would not only have to be white, but tall, dark-haired, etc.

Of course Constantin in Mise a Sac is playing Georges, not Parker.  He's Parker seen as a Frenchman seen through the lens of Cavalier.

As for a general Parker film that wasn't a purist-style adaptation, I stated here quite clearly many African American actors would be great Parkers.  Idris Alba, for one, would be awesome.  I'd much rather see him play Parker than Matt Damon or Ben Affleck.

I got totally misunderstood and misconstrued when I made my comments.  It's like people hear one thing and concentrate on that, forget everything else you write and take it out of context.

By the way, I saw The Split the other day and liked it.  It wasn't a faithful Parker adaptation--for one thing Little Bob Negli is played by six foot four Donald Southerland, among many other stupid changes, but as a 60's Heist flick it wasn't bad.

Nowhere near as good as Point Blank or The Outfit, but way better than Made in USA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cameron Hughes 

Yeah, they really play up the code bullshit and even call him a good guy in the latest trailers. It's giving me hives.

   That irks me too.  We were promised over at VWOP by one of the producers that it was hogwash, that that code bullshit wouldn't be in the final cut.

   Oh, well. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Oreo 

Well, um, duh. 

 

There will never be a mainstream crime film where Parker is portrayed as the sociopath he is in the books. Sadly, general audiences have this thing where they feel they have to "like" a character in order to find him interesting.

   This is what I've been telling Pisher AKA Chris Lyons for two years, Ska.  Maybe he'll listen to you since his distaste for me inhibits him from understanding the logic of my statements.

   Oh, boy, Chris Lyons as a regular CHUD contributor.  I think I'll be visiting CHUD much more infrequently.;-) lol

Look: I'm taking the day off tomorrow and seeing Parker.  I totally realize some of what we've seen and heard in the trailers and in articles is stupid and not accurate, but I would hope any true Parker fan would give the film a chance before casting a verdict.  There are some (whom shall remain nameless--ah, screw it I'm talking about Pisher) who think they can tell if a film will be good or bad because of a 30 second trailer, but there have been plenty of films I've liked that had trailers that did not impress me.

I'll be posting my review of the film here Friday.  It'll be as honest and real as I can make it.  I certainly don't want to encourage anyone to see a film that's a piece of you-know-what, but one can only know that AFTER seeing it.  Do I hope it's good--hell yeah!  I hope it's great, and they make a bunch of money for the Westlake family and that they make several sequels.  But if it's dog doo doo I have no problem conveying that in my review either.

The casting of Statham and some of the changes they've made already make me quite confidant it will NOT be a purist's adaptation.  Heck, Statham didn't even bother to do an American accent, and Parker is a quintessentially American character.  But that does not mean the film will suck. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave618 

 

   This is what I've been telling Pisher AKA Chris Lyons for two years, Ska.  Maybe he'll listen to you since his distaste for me inhibits him from understanding the logic of my statements.

 

   Oh, boy, Chris Lyons as a regular CHUD contributor.  I think I'll be visiting CHUD much more infrequently.;-) lol

Man, just put him on ignore. He does not post much anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pisher 

Dave, I wouldn't say I was obsessing over Mise a Sac.   I'd like to see it, but I doubt it'll end up on my list of 10 best French crime thrillers.   YOU, otoh, are definitely obsessing over it, and it makes no sense.  Parker is no more French than he is black, but this guy is your ideal Parker?  

 

Anyway, I think I found a European actor who'd be even better--he didn't make a lot of movies, and he never became a leading man (but then, neither did Constantin). 

 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgurdcr3MG1qzbmoo.png

 

The guy on the right is the great Lino Ventura, who would have been a natural for any Stark adaptation, but I'm talking about the guy on the left--Stan Krol.   Polish.   If you ever get the chance, Netflix a film called "Classe Tous Risques". 

 

I mean, it's all meaningless, since we're talking about actors who are either dead or long past the age they could play this type of role.   Point is, back when the novels were first being written, there were a lot of guys who could have played Parker well.   These days, I just don't see any. 

   I like Stan Krol.  I will definitely Netflix Classe Tous Risques.

  I'm only busting your chops in my previous comments.  I'm glad you're here.  I like you, Chris, but I wish you weren't so stubborn.  I'm willing to admit the new movie might be a dud, how come you can't admit it might be good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cameron Hughes 

Man, just put him on ignore. He does not post much anyway.

   Just busting his chops a bit.  I've been communicating with him since 2010.  He's very smart and witty.  I often get a good chuckle at his comments.  But he can be brutally obsessive about things.  If you folks think I'm obsessive and stubborn, oh man, are you in for a treat with him!;-) lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave618 

Pisher, or should I say Chris, since that's who I've known you as for more than 2 years, I have no problem with a black actor playing Parker.  I made that abundently clear in my earlier posts.  I stated if you are a purist and want a purist-type adaptation, Parker'd have to be a white dude, and it's have to be set in the same time period as the book was, and the actor would not only have to be white, but tall, dark-haired, etc.

 

Of course Constantin in Mise a Sac is playing Georges, not Parker.  He's Parker seen as a Frenchman seen through the lens of Cavalier.

 

As for a general Parker film that wasn't a purist-style adaptation, I stated here quite clearly many African American actors would be great Parkers.  Idris Alba, for one, would be awesome.  I'd much rather see him play Parker than Matt Damon or Ben Affleck.

 

I got totally misunderstood and misconstrued when I made my comments.  It's like people hear one thing and concentrate on that, forget everything else you write and take it out of context.

 

By the way, I saw The Split the other day and liked it.  It wasn't a faithful Parker adaptation--for one thing Little Bob Negli is played by six foot four Donald Southerland, among many other stupid changes, but as a 60's Heist flick it wasn't bad.

 

Nowhere near as good as Point Blank or The Outfit, but way better than Made in USA.

David, or should I say Plante, it has not been two years, and you don't know me at all.  And it seems like a lot of people here wish they didn't know you, but never mind that now. 

Your comments speak for themselves--and in a typically self-contradicting way.   I think the problem is not that you are racist.   I think the problem is that you are terminally confused.   :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave618 

Look: I'm taking the day off tomorrow and seeing Parker.  I totally realize some of what we've seen and heard in the trailers and in articles is stupid and not accurate, but I would hope any true Parker fan would give the film a chance before casting a verdict.  There are some (whom shall remain nameless--ah, screw it I'm talking about Pisher) who think they can tell if a film will be good or bad because of a 30 second trailer, but there have been plenty of films I've liked that had trailers that did not impress me.

 

I'll be posting my review of the film here Friday.  It'll be as honest and real as I can make it.  I certainly don't want to encourage anyone to see a film that's a piece of you-know-what, but one can only know that AFTER seeing it.  Do I hope it's good--hell yeah!  I hope it's great, and they make a bunch of money for the Westlake family and that they make several sequels.  But if it's dog doo doo I have no problem conveying that in my review either.

 

The casting of Statham and some of the changes they've made already make me quite confidant it will NOT be a purist's adaptation.  Heck, Statham didn't even bother to do an American accent, and Parker is a quintessentially American character.  But that does not mean the film will suck. 

I can only say, what a horrible waste of a day off.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave618 

 

   That irks me too.  We were promised over at VWOP by one of the producers that it was hogwash, that that code bullshit wouldn't be in the final cut.

 

   Oh, well. 

Wow.   A Hollywood producer didn't tell the complete truth about his own project.    Who could have possibly foreseen such a thing?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cameron Hughes 

Yeah, they really play up the code bullshit and even call him a good guy in the latest trailers. It's giving me hives.

People keep saying "They could never put such a cold-blooded character on film", but that's b.s.   Guys worse than Parker have been made into heroes by Hollywood.   I mean, "Natural Born Killers" was how many years ago?  

If you're going to do a conventional good guy/bad guy action movie, of course you can't do Parker straight.   And that's what these producers set out to do, from the get-go.   They hired Jason Statham--big hint right there.   They were never interested in making a real movie.   They just figured here's an established fictional character with a fanbase, and we can talk his family into letting us use his real name for the first time in a movie, and we'll get some typical action movie star, and we'll make some money.     And given the talents of the people involved, that's the best anyone could have expected.   This movie never had any chance of being good--even if you don't give a damn about Richard Stark, or Parker.  It's a failure in its own right.   Just because Hollywood always changes things around doesn't mean all changes are created equal.    They took one of the weakest Parker novels and they showed that Richard Stark at his lowest ebb is better than some hotshot Hollywood screenwriter. 

John J. McLaughlin gave me hives the more I looked at him--people kept saying "Black Swan", but you know what his contribution to that movie was?   He rewrote somebody else's original screenplay.  And then his rewrite was in turn rewritten by somebody else, because Aronofsky didn't think it worked.   And this is the guy who got to rewrite Donald Westlake.   And I've yet to hear ONE line of dialogue from "Flashfire" in any of the trailers, or quoted in any of the reviews--the critics have been particularly savage about the dialogue in this movie.  

People dismiss "Payback", but I'm a Westlake fan today, because Brian Helgeland went out of his way to put huge chunks of dialogue lifted directly from "The Hunter" in his screenplay, and I loved that dialogue so much that I watched this (not very good) movie over and over--and finally started reading the books I found out it was based on.    It wasn't anything but the DIALOGUE that made me do that--that and something of the real Parker that leaked through.   It's not a great movie (in either cut), and I don't watch it anymore.   I found the real thing.   But I still respect the hell out of Helgeland for knowing that Westlake's words coudln't be improved upon. 

Westlake said in interviews he thought Helgeland had been TOO worried about fidelity (in spite of many changes he made to the story and characters).   But that remains the only Parker adaptation that ever made any money.