Monday Morning Quarterback Part Three
By BOP Staff
November 17, 2005
Clive should go all Sin City on the Broccolis
Kim Hollis: The presumption is that the Broccoli family messed up by not paying Clive Owen his asking price to be James Bond. Does the performance of Derailed show that he doesn't need Bond or that the salary request denial is going to hurt him more than it will hurt them?
David Mumpower: I feel like he's one big project away from becoming a star. The flip side of this is that I've just described every lead actor in a television series with that comment.
Reagen Sulewski: Clive Owen is one of those actors that every once in awhile, the press tries to force feed us. He's been rejected for the most part, but if this was his career for the next dozen or so years, I think he has to be happy with that.
Joel Corcoran: I think his last four films - going back to King Arthur - show that he doesn't need Bond. Throw the characters he's portrayed from those four movies together and you have James Bond. Personally, I think the Broccoli family lost out on that broken deal.
David Mumpower: In the football vernacular, the Broccoli family just watched the Colts draft Peyton Manning, and they got stuck with Ryan Leaf.
Reagen Sulewski: Becoming Bond has never been a sure ticket to anything, anyway. Timothy Dalton, anyone?
David Mumpower: Dalton is a bit different anyway in that he was not a lead actor when he got the gig. Owen has been a lead in some big projects.
Kim Hollis: Owen's upcoming projects are terrific. Next year sees The Inside Man, a Spike Lee joint with Denzel Washington, and a super intriguing sci-fi flick called The Children of Men. He's a villain in one and a badass bodyguard in the other. I can't wait to see both.
David Mumpower: What I like best about Owen is that if you ask people whether he played a hero or a villain in Closer, the vote would be split 50/50.
Joel Corcoran: I couldn't have said it better myself, David. Well, maybe I could add that the best thing for the Bond franchise would be the equivalent of an Eric Crouch maneuver.
David Mumpower: But the makers of James Bond should cry over getting stuck with Whatshisname. So, where did we fall on this one? He's better off without Bond or doomed without the role?
Kim Hollis: I think if they're going to cheap it up and ruin the franchise (which is what it appears is the direction the next film is going), he's probably better off.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't know if better off is necessarily the way I'd put it, but I don't think he needed it or it would help him to any great degree.
Joel Corcoran: Personally, I think he's better off without Bond. In another few years, as the franchise continues to decline, I think we'll be talking about how Clive Owen out-Bonds Daniel Craig in almost every sense.Who, James Who?
David Mumpower: If anyone watches Layer Cake followed by The Croupier, there would be no argument that Craig isn't fit to walk the same Earth as Owen.
Joel Corcoran: I've been a huge fan of the Bond movies since I was a kid, and I can't express how deeply disappointed I was when Clive Owen wasn't selected for the role. I'm still a bit bitter about it, really, mainly because I have a dark, foreboding sense of the direction the franchise is going to take in the future.
David Mumpower: I'm nothing short of angry about it, Joel. This is the ultimate example of needing to spend money to make money. Two Bond films from now, the Broccoli family is going through the whole process again after declaring Craig a bust.
Kim Hollis: They're setting him up to fail, anyway. Get a new Bond without much audience support, take away all of the elements that have been important to the series in the past (i.e. Q, Moneypenny, etc.) and you have a recipe for utter disaster.Is this more Get Rich or more Die Tryin'?
Kim Hollis: Get Rich Or Die Tryin' earned $18.2 million in five days. How would you grade this opening?
David Mumpower: It's better than Glitter or From Justin to Kelly but worse than Purple Rain or 8 Mile.
Reagen Sulewski: Slightly underwhelming, especially in comparison to his mentor's $51 million opening weekend three years ago.
Kim Hollis: I have to believe that it's a mild disappointment. It's going to completely fall off the face of the earth in the coming weeks, as well.
Reagen Sulewski: The biggest difference between this and 8 Mile is that 8 Mile did a very good job of looking like a real movie, while this one never felt like anything other than a vanity project.
David Mumpower: I'm surprised you good people consider it a disappointment. This is a first time actor that a certain percentage of the population wants to see fail due to what he is presumed to represent. $18 million in five days for his first outing isn't that bad. Sure, it's more Under the Cherry Moon or Graffiti Bridge than Purple Rain, but still.
Joel Corcoran: I think the interesting question will be whether Usher's movie, In the Mix, does better at the box office than Get Rich Or Die Tryin'. Also, I think it's a mild disappointment because 50 Cent has such a huge freaking fan base. He's a first-time actor, but so was Eminem.
Kim Hollis: Well, Usher has been acting since 1998, so he's a little different. And as far as I can tell, In the Mix doesn't have a 20th of the marketing support that Get Rich had.Next up: an appearance on Freddie
Reagen Sulewski: Does anyone think 50 Cent has another movie in him? He's done the autobiography movie... and that's his range right there.
David Mumpower: If Snoop Dogg does multiple movies, 50 Cent will as well.
Kim Hollis: Bones II!
Reagen Sulewski: Sure, but Snoop essentially does a Dean Martinesque walk-on, and that's it.
David Mumpower: That's the type of role I expect 50 Cent to have. He's a fun "That Guy" inclusion, just like Snoop. And his popularity may not be ignored.
Joel Corcoran: I'm not sure what to say about 50 Cent as an actor. I haven't yet seen Get Rich (though I plan to do so), but at the very least, I think he would have a great film career doing minor roles.The Media: hyping stuff needlessly since 1789
Kim Hollis: A 30-year-old man was shot to death in the lobby following an exhibition of Get Rich Or Die Tryin' at a Loews in Pittsburgh, PA. The media jumped on the story, attempting to imply causality between the movie's nature and the incident. That cineplex stopped showing the movie. Do you think it's valid to blame the film for the incident? Do you think these reports aided or impeded the opening weekend numbers?
David Mumpower: Without knowing full details, just those reported in the media, it does seem like much ado about nothing. It's just coincidental that this was the movie where it happened...although the felons might have found some grim amusement in doing it at that moment.
Kim Hollis: I think that attempting to draw a correlation between the incident and the film is dodgy at best. Though I do wonder if this sort of publicity was a negative.
Reagen Sulewski: I think it had to be, although there's always the school of thought that it just increases awareness.
Joel Corcoran: I can't see any causal link between the movie and the shooting at all. I mean, what link are they trying to imply? That a movie starring 50 Cent (or any rap star) presents some sort of public safety risk? I think there's more of a causal link between horror movies and heart attacks, but the media doesn't get spun up about that.
David Mumpower: Not only that, Joel, but the whole things smacks of closet racism. Oh, look, a film appealing to "that" crowd leads to a violence.
Joel Corcoran: If the news reports affected the box office take of Get Rich Or Die Tryin', I'd have to agree with Kim. It's more likely that the effect was negative, rather than positive. But I still think it's stupid, unfair, and silly for that news story to get the broadcast exposure that it did.
Print this column
