Not that I have a major issue with him playing Magnum, as I think he could definitely bring something to it. But I think he was right when the target chooses the arrow.
Probably a good move for him, as maybe the script was just horrible.
Not that I have a major issue with him playing Magnum, as I think he could definitely bring something to it. But I think he was right when the target chooses the arrow.
Probably a good move for him, as maybe the script was just horrible.
I think you're on to something with the horrible script. 2008, perhaps there was still a hangover from those Miami Vice / Starsky & Hutch movies?
I agree that of all choices I've heard McConaughey had the best potential.
it's fool's gold to do the movie. The actor is the character...and w/o him....you don't have a movie. You simply have a movie using names and places we are familiar with. Whatever the movie turns out to be.......it won't be Magnum PI......it will be some movie with a character of the same name. My guess is Matthew is smart enough to know this is not gonna work.
Some characters are iconic to the actor. That's just a fact of life. Does anyone really think making a Dirty Harry remake is gonna ever work? We didn't watch them for the sake of seeing Harry Callahan....we watch to see Clint Eastwood squint and blast bad guys....no matter his screen name. Think about it, was there much difference between the character in the Dirty Harry movies and the one he played in the Gauntlet? It was Clint, that's all we needed to know.
Another item...Star Trek. Do you know why the remake with a new Kirk worked? It's because between the time of Shatner acting and the new one, the Star Trek universe dwarfed the importance of any one single actor. That will never be the case with Magnum.
IMO, to make a Magnum movie is a cheap attempt to make a buck. They literally have to wait until Selleck is long gone before it may work...long enough for people to disassociate character....kind of like McGarrett and 5-O.
Seaver41 wrote:it's fool's gold to do the movie. The actor is the character...and w/o him....you don't have a movie. You simply have a movie using names and places we are familiar with. Whatever the movie turns out to be.......it won't be Magnum PI......it will be some movie with a character of the same name. My guess is Matthew is smart enough to know this is not gonna work.
Some characters are iconic to the actor. That's just a fact of life. Does anyone really think making a Dirty Harry remake is gonna ever work? We didn't watch them for the sake of seeing Harry Callahan....we watch to see Clint Eastwood squint and blast bad guys....no matter his screen name. Think about it, was there much difference between the character in the Dirty Harry movies and the one he played in the Gauntlet? It was Clint, that's all we needed to know.
Another item...Star Trek. Do you know why the remake with a new Kirk worked? It's because between the time of Shatner acting and the new one, the Star Trek universe dwarfed the importance of any one single actor. That will never be the case with Magnum.
IMO, to make a Magnum movie is a cheap attempt to make a buck. They literally have to wait until Selleck is long gone before it may work...long enough for people to disassociate character....kind of like McGarrett and 5-O.
Well put. Any mpi movie w/out Selleck might as well go straight to Netflix. Skipping theaters AND dvd rental.
Television was a big part of american's lives then. The internet has replaced it. Box office movies are far less influential now than ever. All we can do is be very glad to have grown up when we did watching cbs on Thursday nights one damned good show.
Estate resident wrote:Television was a big part of american's lives then. The internet has replaced it. Box office movies are far less influential now than ever. All we can do is be very glad to have grown up when we did watching cbs on Thursday nights one damned good show.
