He doesn’t do anything. That’s the beauty of it.
Nothing, I hope. It’s for the sake of the world.
He’s busy explaining to white people that Chris Rock is a different person.
Ha! You had me going for a while there.
By the way, which is the pseudonym, Rock or Tucker?
For the record, I can remember where I was and what I was doing when I found out that Chris Tucker is one of the highest paid actors…it was that traumatic.
thanks for the chuckle
Mr. S: My Life with Frank Sinatra (2008) (announced) … George Jacobs
RE: ^^^^ this. I take it this will be a “starring” role? Jacobs was Sinatra’s long-time valet & confidant - I believe the film will be based on his autobiography.
VCNJ~
Wonder who they’ll tap for Sinatra…I went to IMDB to see the rest of the cast but right now only Tucker is listed.
I thought DDL did lots of plays. I could be wrong.Is there anyone else in show business that does so little in show business?
Kubrick did very few movies after 1957.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
The Shining (1980)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Lolita (1962)
Spartacus (1960)
Paths of Glory (1957)
It’s claimed that Day-Lewis did nothing between the films The Boxer and Gangs of New York except shoemaking:
It’s normal for directors to make only one film every few years, mainly because the directorial process from casting to editing usually takes around two years.
By contrast, since actors are only involved for the (approximately) 8-12 weeks of actual shooting, they can be in several films a year.
As a bit of a Jackie Chan fan, the reason Chris Tucker made so much money for RH3 is because he stalled and and stalled and held out for more money for the third installment. Everytime it seemed to be near an agreement, Jackie was already working on another film.
Essentially, Jackie was all for the flick, as he likes to work or cannot stop working. ( The man is a machine.) and it isn’t so much about the money as it is making the film. For tucker, it is all about the money and he felt that Jackie was getting screwed by THE MAN etc. Jackie has been in the business for 35 years and is a Global Icon. Chris is just an annoyance.
I enjoy the Rush Hour Series ( well, 3 is ehhhh.) but I have discovered that they are far more enjoyable to fast forward thru Chris Tucker’s scenes.
I’ve just looked at the costs/gross of the Rush Hour films - I never realised they were so popular! Saying that the studios made a bit of a boo boo on 3 which cost $140m to make and only made $255m.
Ellis Dee writes:
> It’s normal for directors to make only one film every few years, mainly because
> the directorial process from casting to editing usually takes around two years.
No, it’s normal for established directors to make films perhaps once every two years and perhaps once a year if you’re not a big name. Kubrick was averaging one film every four or five years over a period of more than forty years. If you’re making films that slowly, you’re either having problems getting funding or you’ve got personal problems. Kubrick was reportedly obsessive-compulsive about his films.
Could you list some examples of the film-a-year group?
ETA: I’m thinking of the “film by” guys, not the director-for-hire guys, so I see your point.
Robert Altman, Stephen Spielberg, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Paul Thomas Anderson, Ang Lee, . . .
Sorry, those are the film-every-two-years group. The film-every-year group I’d have to think about for a while.
I’m thinking he goes right on sucking - he just does it off screen.