War Zone Box Office Thread

[S. Grundy]

Thomas Jane walked off this project on his own, claiming he didn't "believe in it". Whatever that means. Most of the things he talked about wanting in a Punisher film were found in WAR ZONE. The latest rumors on it were that he wanted more creative control, and was denied it.

He didn't believe in it means exactly what it means, he could have stayed on and did whatever ****** script was going to get made, but he opted to leave because he didn't believe in the direction it was going in. He said wanted it to be more akin to Taxi Driver or Collateral in tone, an urban crime drama. PWZ has none of those elements, it's just a ******ed action movie. I even recall he wanted fans to write in a say what they wanted to see in the sequel, it was on thepunisher.com, I'm too lazy to look for it though.

Yes, that would have been nice, but word from most insiders was that since THE PUNISHER wasn't a great movie and Hensleigh's script was awful, it was hard for Lionsgate to get any directors interested. Bit of an uphill battle there.

Hensleigh only did one draft, after that they got other people to do rewrites, John Dahl said the script was crap, whether it was Santora's or Sutter's I don't know, but that was the problem all the rewrites were bad. Besides the fact that Walter Hill was willing to do the movie with his own script.

Frank Castle was portrayed in a fairly realistic manner. So were his emotions, and so were his motivations, and his methods.

From a tactical standpoint no not really, he did plenty of unrealistic stuff that no soldier would do. Also how is punching a guys face in with one punch realisitc?

I would tend to agree that, like Ennis's runs, there has to be more to it than just "uber serious vigilante tale". Rarely can you just put an ultra serious vigilante onscreen and sell it to the public. Especially if you don't have a big name to do so.

Dark comedy is fine for the character, it's just the last two movies kinda sucked at that element. Hensleigh, with having the more serious stuff and then cutting to something more comedic like the popcicle torture is quite jarring. PWZ, the comedy just sucked and wasn't funny, though I did laugh, but it was for stuff I think I wasn't suppose to laugh at.

 

[BestGirl]

Frank Castle was portrayed in a fairly realistic manner. So were his emotions, and so were his motivations, and his methods.

What do you mean when you say his methods were realistic?

 

[The Guard]

He didn't believe in it means exactly what it means, he could have stayed on and did whatever ****** script was going to get made, but he opted to leave because he didn't believe in the direction it was going in. He said wanted it to be more akin to Taxi Driver or Collateral in tone, an urban crime drama. PWZ has none of those elements, it's just a ******ed action movie. I even recall he wanted fans to write in a say what they wanted to see in the sequel, it was on thepunisher.com, I'm too lazy to look for it though.

The point is...he walked off the project before Lexi Alexander ever came aboard, as I recall.

TAXI DRIVER or COLLATERAL?

Ok...

Hensleigh only did one draft, after that they got other people to do rewrites, John Dahl said the script was crap, whether it was Santora's or Sutter's I don't know, but that was the problem all the rewrites were bad. Besides the fact that Walter Hill was willing to do the movie with his own script.

So where was Jane in all this?

From a tactical standpoint no not really, he did plenty of unrealistic stuff that no soldier would do.

As he's almost always done. He's The Punisher. Not just a former soldier. Being a soldier has never, ever stopped The Punisher from sometimes abandoning "sound" military tactics on occassion.

Observe:

http://stuartngbooks.com/zeck_punisher_b1_cvr.jpg

I'm curious as to what you think were the tactics he used that were so bad?

Also how is punching a guys face in with one punch realisitc?

I suppose it depends on who you are and how mad you are. I said "fairly realistic".

Dark comedy is fine for the character, it's just the last two movies kinda sucked at that element. Hensleigh, with having the more serious stuff and then cutting to something more comedic like the popcicle torture is quite jarring. PWZ, the comedy just sucked and wasn't funny, though I did laugh, but it was for stuff I think I wasn't suppose to laugh at.

Obviously some of that you were supposed to laugh at, because some of it is played as dark comedy.

What do you mean when you say his methods were realistic?

I mean his methods were, in general, fairly realistic. The way he operated, most of his tactics, the weapons he used, the way he used them, and the way he acquired them. Not neccessarily "safe", but relatively realistic nontheless.

 

[BestGirl]

I mean his methods were, in general, fairly realistic. The way he operated, most of his tactics, the weapons he used, the way he used them, and the way he acquired them. Not neccessarily "safe", but relatively realistic nontheless.

I don't think shooting mobsters while hanging from a chandelier and storming criminal-infested buildings alone is particularly realistic. His close combat tactics and method of procuring weapons perhaps were, though. P:WZ felt like the kind of OTT violent movie that isn't supposed to be taken entirely seriously, so I don't know if it matters how realistic any of it was.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think it's particularly realistic, either, as a sound tactic.

in general, fairly realistic.

most of his tactics

Obviously, Frank Castle in WAR ZONE, like Frank Castle in the comics, does not always use entirely appropriate military tactics. Which is why I used words like "fairly' and "in general" when you asked for further clarification.

 

[S. Grundy]

The point is...he walked off the project before Lexi Alexander ever came aboard, as I recall.

TAXI DRIVER or COLLATERAL?

Ok...

And what Alexander put up on the screen clearly wasn't what he wanted out of a Punisher movie, the thing was just goofy. Mainly because she just didn't get the character and all she saw were the pretty colors and violence in the books and decided to make a silly comic book movie, cause the character is just silly.

So where was Jane in all this?

He was fighting the studio to get the script right for like 4 years. And when he wanted to bring Hill on board and they said no, that was apparently it for him and he apparently saw the writing on the wall regarding how the movie would be.

As he's almost always done. He's The Punisher. Not just a former soldier. Being a soldier has never, ever stopped The Punisher from sometimes abandoning "sound" military tactics on occassion.

Observe:

http://stuartngbooks.com/zeck_punisher_b1_cvr.jpg

I'm curious as to what you think were the tactics he used that were so bad?

The chandelier, and the whole in the mansion was fairly dumb. Jumping through a boarded up window was also a pretty dumb move, and when in the building he just seemed to have been leaving himself open sliding on his knees in the middle of a hallway and just running around a blindly shooting people.

I suppose it depends on who you are and how mad you are. I said "fairly realistic".

No not really, the amount of pounds of pressure he would have to use to archive what he did is unrealistic. He caved a guys face in with one punch that is in no way believable. Plus you see his arms in the beginning not much going on there either, he was big but not built like a tank.

Obviously some of that you were supposed to laugh at, because some of it is played as dark comedy.

I don't think I was suppose to laugh the more "serious" moments, like the church scene or anything with Angela, her kid and Frank.

 

[dft-313]

The point is...he walked off the project before Lexi Alexander ever came aboard, as I recall.

Yes, he did. because it was so hopelessly screwed that he couldn't cope any more.

TAXI DRIVER or COLLATERAL?

Ok...

Taxi Driver, less so, but it deals with many of the same themes - a man who's excluded from society and trying to make the world make sense.

So where was Jane in all this?

Hensleigh's first draft is a perfectly servicable spec script. he was trying to give the studio what they wanted and secure finance. He realised he was never going to get what he wanted so left the production.

Jane hung on, getting various people involved, including John Dahl. Dahl read the script and said it would need a serious rewrite and his proposal caused Lionsgate to baulk at the idea.

Finally, Jane found Walter Hill who wanted to write the script and Lionsgate said no. They never wanted to make a serious action movie. They wanted a piece of trash and they got it.

I suppose it depends on who you are and how mad you are. I said "fairly realistic".

There is no way for a normal, human male to punch a man's face into sludge with one blow.

Obviously some of that you were supposed to laugh at, because some of it is played as dark comedy.

it's played as farce. it's not smart enough to do black comedy.

 

[S. Grundy]

Jane hung on, getting various people involved, including John Dahl. Dahl read the script and said it would need a serious rewrite and his proposal caused Lionsgate to baulk at the idea.

Stuart Beattie was on for a while before he found a better gig too.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Well, to the people hoping that WZ would get a boost from the dollar theaters, bad news: WZ is officially out of theaters according to Box Office Mojo.com. The BO is currently at Domestic Total which indicates that all the theatres have dropped it.

 

[The Guard]

Hensleigh's draft, spec script or not, was pretty much just as goofy. In fact, Henseligh's draft had a far goofier and less deep portrayal of Jigsaw, for the most part, than even Alexander's did.

When Jane was "fighting the studio", what precisely was he fighting with? It sort of seems to me like he just complained and complained and eventually demanded control over the film itself, and then when that didn't happen, jumped ship.

The chandelier, and the whole in the mansion was fairly dumb.

But damned effective, it seems. Even tactically speaking.

Jumping through a boarded up window was also a pretty dumb move

And a ****ton smarter than walking in the front door.

and when in the building he just seemed to have been leaving himself open sliding on his knees in the middle of a hallway and just running around a blindly shooting people.

As much as I'd like to pretend that The Punisher has never left himself open...

"Just running around blindly shooting people?"

You're kidding, right?

No not really, the amount of pounds of pressure he would have to use to archive what he did is unrealistic. He caved a guys face in with one punch that is in no way believable. Plus you see his arms in the beginning not much going on there either, he was big but not built like a tank.

Wow me. How many pounds of pressure would he have to apply in order to do what he did?

It's my understanding that crushing things like bone tends to be about skill, not just brute strength. When people can break cement bricks and wood, I don't find breaking someone's skull that much a suspension of disbelief in a movie like this. Frankly, though, I'm not interested in whether it's "real". I'm interested in whether it appears "realistic" in the context of the movie. And even then, I don't particularly care if physics is exactly right in a film like this. The Punisher's never, ever been a truly realistic concept. Even stuff like THE DARK KNIGHT screws up in this regard.

I don't think I was suppose to laugh the more "serious" moments, like the church scene or anything with Angela, her kid and Frank

No, I don't think you were. Not sure why you did. Sounds like a personal problem.

Yes, he did. because it was so hopelessly screwed that he couldn't cope any more.

O...k.

So you've got a man who took part eagerly in a less than stellar film...who then walked off the sequel project just before it began to trend in the direction of the things that he professed to want that differed from the first film?

Taxi Driver, less so, but it deals with many of the same themes - a man who's excluded from society and trying to make the world make sense.

Since when has The Punisher been about the world making sense and a man "excluded" from society? The man chooses not to take part in society unless he has to, and the story of The Punisher is about a man who kills criminals because he hates them, and the psychological impact that this has on him and others, as well as the social impact.

Jane hung on, getting various people involved, including John Dahl. Dahl read the script and said it would need a serious rewrite and his proposal caused Lionsgate to baulk at the idea.

Interesting that no one ever apparently...you know...wrote a script.

That's sort of a lazy way to try to save a project.

Finally, Jane found Walter Hill who wanted to write the script and Lionsgate said no. They never wanted to make a serious action movie. They wanted a piece of trash and they got it.

I'm sorry "They wanted a piece of trash and they got it"?

Yes, that must have been Lionsgate's aim all along.

And, Walter Hill, who hadn't directed a major movie since 1996, when he did LAST MAN STANDING? The man who directed the forgettable WILD BILL (And this is difficult for me to say, becuase I studied Wild Bill when I played him)? Who had recently directed one episode of DEADWOOD, three episodes of TALES FROM THE CRYPT circa 1990, and prior to that, hadn't directed anything truly memorable (or particularly decent) since the gem that was THE WARRIORS in 1979, and who had recently produced ALIEN VS PREDATOR? That Walter Hill?

Now, please understand, I'm not saying the man hadn't had some success, but people are wondering why Lionsgate didn't just hand the man their franchise?

Wow, one wonders why.

it's played as farce. it's not smart enough to do black comedy.

If the entire movie was played for comedy, I would agree with you. As the entire movie is not played for comedy, I do not.

I am also not sure why you think a black comedy has to be incredibly intelligent to work in context.

Black comedy is a sub-genre of comedy and satire in which topics and events that are usually regarded as taboo are treated in a satirical or humorous manner while retaining its seriousness.

Hmm...that sort of sounds like...some parts of WAR ZONE. And as you'll notice, I said "some of it" was played as dark comedy. Not all of it.

I'm wondering...have any of you heard details of these proposed Punisher stories that other artists wanted to do?

 

[S. Grundy]

Hensleigh's draft, spec script or not, was pretty much just as goofy. In fact, Henseligh's draft had a far goofier and less deep portrayal of Jigsaw, for the most part, than even Alexander's did.

When Jane was "fighting the studio", what precisely was he fighting with? It sort of seems to me like he just complained and complained and eventually demanded control over the film itself, and then when that didn't happen, jumped ship.

He was fighting for a serious movie without any goofy **** in it. And it was contractually his right to have director and script approval before the movie started.

But damned effective, it seems. Even tactically speaking

And a ****ton smarter than walking in the front door.

There probably could have been a better way in other than jumping into a 3rd or 4th story boarded up window.

As much as I'd like to pretend that The Punisher has never left himself open...

"Just running around blindly shooting people?"

You're kidding, right?

That's what it looks like he's doing at the hotel.

Wow me. How many pounds of pressure would he have to apply in order to do what he did?

It's my understanding that crushing things like bone tends to be about skill, not just brute strength. When people can break cement bricks and wood, I don't find breaking someone's skull that much a suspension of disbelief in a movie like this. Frankly, though, I'm not interested in whether it's "real". I'm interested in whether it appears "realistic" in the context of the movie. And even then, I don't particularly care if physics is exactly right in a film like this. The Punisher's never, ever been a truly realistic concept. Even stuff like THE DARK KNIGHT screws up in this regard.

I don't know whow much, but you can't make someones face explode like that with a single punch, it's not realistic on any level. The Dark Knight was a **** ton more realistic and believable than PWZ, and that's kind sad.

No, I don't think you were. Not sure why you did. Sounds like a personal problem.

I laughed because it was so cheesy and ham-fisted.

O...k.

So you've got a man who took part eagerly in a less than stellar film...who then walked off the sequel project just before it began to trend in the direction of the things that he professed to want that differed from the first film?

What ended up on the screen is nothing like what Jane said he wanted out of a sequel.

Interesting that no one ever apparently...you know...wrote a script.

That's sort of a lazy way to try to save a project.

I'm sorry "They wanted a piece of trash and they got it"?

Yes, that must have been Lionsgate's aim all along.

And, Walter Hill, who hadn't directed a major movie since 1996, when he did LAST MAN STANDING? The man who directed the forgettable WILD BILL (And this is difficult for me to say, becuase I studied Wild Bill when I played him)? Who had recently directed one episode of DEADWOOD, three episodes of TALES FROM THE CRYPT circa 1990, and prior to that, hadn't directed anything truly memorable (or particularly decent) since the gem that was THE WARRIORS in 1979, and who had recently produced ALIEN VS PREDATOR? That Walter Hill?

Now, please understand, I'm not saying the man hadn't had some success, but people are wondering why Lionsgate didn't just hand the man their franchise?

Wow, one wonders why.

Streets of Fire, Extreme Prejudice, 48 hrs., and I think Wild Bill was a good as was Last Man Standing. The fact is he's made plenty of good movies, as for AVP he's produced or had a hand in writing all the other Alien films, he's been apart of that franchise from the beginning and his credit on the AVP movies might just be a formality.

And instead of going with someone with a proven track record such as Hill, they went with Alexander who made one pretty bad movie and a short film prior. Whether you like Hill or not, plenty of film lovers think he's done great work.

If the entire movie was played for comedy, I would agree with you. As the entire movie is not played for comedy, I do not.

I am also not sure why you think a black comedy has to be incredibly intelligent to work in context.

Black comedy is a sub-genre of comedy and satire in which topics and events that are usually regarded as taboo are treated in a satirical or humorous manner while retaining its seriousness.

Hmm...that sort of sounds like...some parts of WAR ZONE. And as you'll notice, I said "some of it" was played as dark comedy. Not all of it.

The thing is the dark comedy just fell ****ing flat. There was nothing serious about Jigsaw, he was a cartoon.

 

[rogue trooper]

Well, to the people hoping that WZ would get a boost from the dollar theaters, bad news: WZ is officially out of theaters according to Box Office Mojo.com. The BO is currently at Domestic Total which indicates that all the theatres have dropped it.

The movie is still showing at one of my regular local theaters.

 

[jebhdb]

While I understand it is still unrealisic, you have to take into account that the guy that got his face punched in was snorting coke all through the movie. Almost every shot they had of the guy he had a spoon in his nose. I believe the intention was to imply that the severe drug usage had basically rotted out the guys face. The drugs had eaten away the bone structure. Thats why his face imploded.

Also it is common that a movie will be out of regular theaters for a time before appearing in dollar theaters. I don't think anyone was implying that the movie was going to suddenly turn a profit when it hit dollar theaters, only that its weekly box office might slightly increase due to the people that either only go to see dollar shows, or that wouldn't pay normal ticket prices to see War Zone, but would be willing to give it a chance for a reduced ticket.

 

[S. Grundy]

The nose is cartilage and not bone, but even if it was severely weakened by the coke it wouldn't have affected the bone structure of the face. At most the nose might have been destroyed by the punch, but it wouldn't have look like it does in the movie, you know like he caused Ink's face to explode.

 

[citizenpain]

you guys are getting way too into this. it's just a movie...

 

[jebhdb]

I agree that it isn't realistic. I just feel that was what the intention of the director was.

 

[Devil]

F***, guys. It's a comic-book movie, it's unreal!

And that has said Lexi Alexander the movie is set on a Marvel New York. So it's unreal!

 

[dft-313]

There were six drafts of the script and Lionsgate rejected each one of them, sending Jane, Beattie, Dahl and Hill with them.

Also, Guard, you're very dismissive of Hill's career - he certainly didn't "stop" with The Warriors. As Grundy has said, he did some pretty good (and in 48 Hrs case, excellent) action movies. he's got a way with actors, can deal with action and can apply a consistent tone.

On top of that, he's a comic book fan and is very skilled at aping other directors. His lack of output since Last Man Standing is down to his production commitments and a lack of projects he wants to work on.

Ok, he's no Michael Mann but a director like Mann is all wrong for The Punisher. I think this would have been the perfect project for Hill. he's a safe pair of hands, brings production contacts for budget generation, has a history of bringing films in on time and on budget, has worked with stunts extensively and has a cult cache.

Let's put it like this: there'd have been no gurning for the camera. he'd have made a hard, gritty action movie with proper characters.

If you like Alexander's work, I have no respect for your opinions. Her direction is absolutely inept throughout the film.

 

[rogue trooper]

If you like Alexander's work, I have no respect for your opinions.

...and vice versa!

 

[dft-313]

...and vice versa!

Well well well...

 

[The Guard]

Anyone who thinks The Punisher was just "running around blindly shooting people" needs to watch the last scene again.

He was fighting for a serious movie without any goofy **** in it. And it was contractually his right to have director and script approval before the movie started.

Yes, I know all this, but he was fighting with what?

There probably could have been a better way in other than jumping into a 3rd or 4th story boarded up window.

Such as?

Going in the back door?

Rappelling to the window from the roof and prying it open with a crowbar?

Wow me with something better, and more appropriate for the character, tactically and dramatically.

I don't know whow much, but you can't make someones face explode like that with a single punch, it's not realistic on any level. The Dark Knight was a **** ton more realistic and believable than PWZ, and that's kind sad.

You don't know how much pressure it would take to do such a thing, but you felt earlier than you could tell me it's not possible because a man can't apply that many pounds of pressure. Interesting.

The face didn't explode, as I recall. It was crushed inward. Why isn't it realistic on any level?

What about it being realistic on the level of realism found in WAR ZONE?

After all, you said "any level".

By the by, THE DARK KNIGHT had several "physics" issues, elements that stretch the nature of belief. Landing on a car with his cape barely open and Batman and Rachel not being injured after what looks to be at least a 40 MPH fall. Batman somehow managing to grapple The Joker's foot as he fell. Batman falling the same distance Two Face did and being able to get up, let alone to walk. Two Face's face catching fire and him still being able to survive, let alone speak.

I laughed because it was so cheesy and ham-fisted.

Fair enough. Sounds like a personal problem.

What ended up on the screen is nothing like what Jane said he wanted out of a sequel.

Nothing like it?

"The first one ended with him busting into that club and taking out all those people, and the second will open where the first one left off. It will just be incredibly violent and then it will just get more and more violent as the film goes on. That's the kind of film that it should be! It's a real take no prisoners punk rock kind of an action film, and g**ammit, it should piss a lot of people off!"

Jane said that while the script is not finished, he is working closely with the team. He said that he is doing EVERYTHING he can do to get the setting moved to the borroughs of New York and that Jigsaw is "more than likely" going to be the villian in the movie
JANE: The writer is halfway through a draft right now. We should be rolling camera with any luck by February. Jigsaw is going to be in it.

According to series star Thomas Jane, the wheels are in motion for him to slip that trademark skull onto his chest again soon for "The Punisher 2." "The script comes in a couple of weeks, and it's going to be darker, bloodier and more unfriendly than the first one," Jane confirmed.
Concerning The Punisher 2, Tom says he'd like to make a drama, without any goofy stuff. "Just straight noir, drama, with the inherent blood and guts in it." Jane also says it will definitely take place in New York.

Now, did Jane say he'd like it to be a straight drama? Yes. Was it? No. But it did have elements of a drama, and my statement was that WAR ZONE featured several of the things he wanted.

Streets of Fire, Extreme Prejudice, 48 hrs., and I think Wild Bill was a good as was Last Man Standing. The fact is he's made plenty of good movies, as for AVP he's produced or had a hand in writing all the other Alien films, he's been apart of that franchise from the beginning and his credit on the AVP movies might just be a formality.

STREETS OF FIRE?

EXTREME PREJUDICE?

Really?

These are your "plenty of good movies"?

I guess if "good" is "mildly entertaining"...maybe...

So what you're saying is...if his credit on AVP is a formality...he's done damn near nothing of note since LAST MAN STANDING?

And instead of going with someone with a proven track record such as Hill, they went with Alexander who made one pretty bad movie and a short film prior. Whether you like Hill or not, plenty of film lovers think he's done great work.

Now, when you say "pretty bad movie", you're talking about the one that won the following awards?

LA Femme Film Festival
Lexi Alexander won Best Feature (2005)

Malibu Film Festival
Lexi Alexander won Best of the Fest (2005)

SXSW Film Festival
Lexi Alexander won Special Jury Award

The thing is the dark comedy just fell ****ing flat. There was nothing serious about Jigsaw, he was a cartoon.

For you. Sounds like a personal problem?

There's nothing serious about Jigsaw?

The man had his face ripped to pieces
He killed his doctor over bad news
He stuck a candlestick in a man's throat
He made a very serious and corrupt deal with the FBI
He was willing to have an old woman savagely murdered, a child killed, and he did kill Micro in a heartbeat

But no, there was "nothing serious" about Jigsaw.

There were six drafts of the script and Lionsgate rejected each one of them, sending Jane, Beattie, Dahl and Hill with them.

And do we know details of any of these scripts, why they were rejected, etc?

Also, Guard, you're very dismissive of Hill's career -

What?

Now, please understand, I'm not saying the man hadn't had some success

No, I'm simply aware of the fact that he hadn't directed a major motion picture in ten years. You need to read my posts a little closer. I wasn't dismissive at all about his success. I simply made a point about the timeframe of it.

He certainly didn't "stop" with The Warriors. As Grundy has said, he did some pretty good (and in 48 Hrs case, excellent) action movies. he's got a way with actors, can deal with action and can apply a consistent tone.

48 HOURS was in 1982.

He made that movie over 26 years ago.

I made a very key point involving the years he made his films in. Do you not see the point I am making here?

In my experience, studios wouldn't generally pull a director who made a few decent action movies in the 80's but has not directed a movie in over ten years, and give them a Marvel franchise.

Is it possible he could have made a decent movie? Sure, it's possible. Is it realistic to expect a major studio to assume he'd be able to do so based on some late 70's and 80's action films? I don't know. I kind of doubt it. Again, in my experience, Hollywood doesn't generally work like that.

You sort of missed the part where I did a rundown of what he's done recently that's been of note. I said he hasn't done anything particularly memorable since THE WARRIORS. And I pretty much stand by that. I mean, I'd love to pretend people go around discussing the merits of 48 HOURS, or any of his other films, but I don't see that too often.

On top of that, he's a comic book fan and is very skilled at aping other directors. His lack of output since Last Man Standing is down to his production commitments and a lack of projects he wants to work on.

Is that supposed to sway me?

"His lack of recent experience is due to the fact that he'd rather produce subpar alien VS predator action movies"?

Ok, he's no Michael Mann but a director like Mann is all wrong for The Punisher. I think this would have been the perfect project for Hill. he's a safe pair of hands, brings production contacts for budget generation, has a history of bringing films in on time and on budget, has worked with stunts extensively and has a cult cache.

Hey, that's great. Good for him. What you or some fans of Hill personally think or know about how well he handles working on a budget does not change the reality of Hollywood.

Let's put it like this: there'd have been no gurning for the camera.
he'd have made a hard, gritty action movie with proper characters.

What are you basing this on? Have you read his Punisher script?

And more to the point, since you don't think Jigsaw was anything close to proper, have you ever read a Punisher story involving Jigsaw?

 

[S. Grundy]

Yes, I know all this, but he was fighting with what?

What do you mean fighting with what, he was fighting the studio on how the direction of the film should go in.

Such as?

Going in the back door?

Rappelling to the window from the roof and prying it open with a crowbar

Wow me with something better, and more appropriate for the character, tactically and dramatically.

I don't know, wait for the shooting to get to a lull at the front and toss a grenade or flash bang and then go to town. It's a bit more tactical then taking a chance like jumping 3 or 4 stories into a boarded up window.

You don't know how much pressure it would take to do such a thing, but you felt earlier than you could tell me it's not possible because a man can't apply that many pounds of pressure. Interesting.

The face didn't explode, as I recall. It was crushed inward. Why isn't it realistic on any level?

What about it being realistic on the level of realism found in WAR ZONE?

After all, you said "any level".

I don't know how many pounds of pressure it would take, but I do know you can't do it in one punch. At the worst the guys nose would have been destroyed because of the rampant cocaine use. Now a way they could have achieved that scene in a believable fashion is if he used beer bottle or the butt of a gun, it would take repeated blows but would have the more or less the same effect.

By the by, THE DARK KNIGHT had several "physics" issues, elements that stretch the nature of belief. Landing on a car with his cape barely open and Batman and Rachel not being injured after what looks to be at least a 40 MPH fall. Batman somehow managing to grapple The Joker's foot as he fell. Batman falling the same distance Two Face did and being able to get up, let alone to walk. Two Face's face catching fire and him still being able to survive, let alone speak.

Maybe, but it was done in a way that was believable.

Fair enough. Sounds like a personal problem.

Not a personal problem, it was just horribly written

Nothing like it?

"The first one ended with him busting into that club and taking out all those people, and the second will open where the first one left off. It will just be incredibly violent and then it will just get more and more violent as the film goes on. That's the kind of film that it should be! It's a real take no prisoners punk rock kind of an action film, and g**ammit, it should piss a lot of people off!"

Jane said that while the script is not finished, he is working closely with the team. He said that he is doing EVERYTHING he can do to get the setting moved to the borroughs of New York and that Jigsaw is "more than likely" going to be the villian in the movie
JANE: The writer is halfway through a draft right now. We should be rolling camera with any luck by February. Jigsaw is going to be in it.

According to series star Thomas Jane, the wheels are in motion for him to slip that trademark skull onto his chest again soon for "The Punisher 2." "The script comes in a couple of weeks, and it's going to be darker, bloodier and more unfriendly than the first one," Jane confirmed.
Concerning The Punisher 2, Tom says he'd like to make a drama, without any goofy stuff. "Just straight noir, drama, with the inherent blood and guts in it." Jane also says it will definitely take place in New York.

Now, did Jane say he'd like it to be a straight drama? Yes. Was it? No. But it did have elements of a drama, and my statement was that WAR ZONE featured several of the things he wanted.

"It's more of a Taxi Driver kind of a feel which I think we'll go for in the second movie," he says. "I think that's where the first one succeeded, where we were doing more realistic type stuff. And if we can, [we should] get away from the lighter aspects of the first film. Because I think that's where the movie failed."

"There's so much new ground to be broken. The potential for The Punisher — especially when it comes to the real juicy stuff — should go more in the direction of a gritty, urban street drama like Taxi Driver rather than a glossy, fantasy direction like the X-Men [films]."

Although I can’t be very specific on the details of Jane’s story for ‘Punisher 2’, I can tell you that it is a very compelling one. Yes, Jigsaw is the major villain and yes, it will be set in New York City. Jane would like to see a film that has the Punisher involved in some very close and personal fighting styles. Lots of Close Quarters Battle (CQB) and less shooting up a ton of bad guys with automatic weapons.

If Lionsgate will not pony up the funds and resources to bring on an experienced film writer to develop a decent script, Thomas Jane will not be involved in a sequel.

This coming Monday Thomas will try and convince Lionsgate they are approaching this franchise the wrong way and this is not the type of movie that Punisher fans are calling for. Jane envisions a movie in the vein of ‘Taxi Driver’ or ‘Collateral’. Something dark and crime noir. Something that carries with it the look and feel of the last 10 minutes of the first film. Not a “Steven Segal rip off.” What he wants to do is convince Lionsgate this is what the fans are looking for too.

Or, what are the fans looking for?

We need your help in compiling some statistics on what the Punisher fan has in mind for a sequel. What are a Punisher fan’s favorite movies? What kind of film do you want ‘Punisher 2’ to be? What directors would be perfect for ‘Punisher 2’?

Jane would like to hear from you and take this information to the table on Monday. We do not have a lot of time to compile this information so get your ideas in now. Forward this to your friends and fellow Punisher fans. Copy this to all your internet message boards and get the word out there that we are about to lose this franchise to a group of people that are not in tune with the character or what the fans really want.

And yes he did say stuff like;

"The script comes in a couple of weeks, and it's going to be darker, bloodier and more unfriendly than the first one".

And a good movie can have those elements, it's just that PWZ was a horrible movie. So it doesn't mean it was what he wanted out of the sequel.

STREETS OF FIRE?

EXTREME PREJUDICE?

Really?

These are your "plenty of good movies"?

I guess if "good" is "mildly entertaining"...maybe...

So what you're saying is...if his credit on AVP is a formality...he's done damn near nothing of note since LAST MAN STANDING?

They are good movies, he's a good director it's a fact. Why he hasn't done more work maybe personal.

Now, when you say "pretty bad movie", you're talking about the one that won the following awards?

LA Femme Film Festival
Lexi Alexander won Best Feature (2005)

Malibu Film Festival
Lexi Alexander won Best of the Fest (2005)

SXSW Film Festival
Lexi Alexander won Special Jury Award

Plenty of crappy movies have won awards. Crash won an Oscar, doesn't mean it's a good movie same with Forrest Gump.

For you. Sounds like a personal problem?

There's nothing serious about Jigsaw?

The man had his face ripped to pieces
He killed his doctor over bad news
He stuck a candlestick in a man's throat
He made a very serious and corrupt deal with the FBI
He was willing to have an old woman savagely murdered, a child killed, and he did kill Micro in a heartbeat

But no, there was "nothing serious" about Jigsaw.

He was a caricature, West's acting was so hammy it was laughable when he did kill someone.

And do we know details of any of these scripts, why they were rejected, etc?

On the studio side of things, it was probably too dark, as per the Steven S. DeKnight drafts. And probably on the Jane side of things later scripts by Santora or Sutter were too goofy. Beattie didn't get too far on his draft before he left the project.

In my experience, studios wouldn't generally pull a director who made a few decent action movies in the 80's but has not directed a movie in over ten years, and give them a Marvel franchise.

Is it possible he could have made a decent movie? Sure, it's possible. Is it realistic to expect a major studio to assume he'd be able to do so based on some late 70's and 80's action films? I don't know. I kind of doubt it. Again, in my experience, Hollywood doesn't generally work like that.

You sort of missed the part where I did a rundown of what he's done recently that's been of note. I said he hasn't done anything particularly memorable since THE WARRIORS. And I pretty much stand by that. I mean, I'd love to pretend people go around discussing the merits of 48 HOURS, or any of his other films, but I don't see that too often.

Who cares if something was memorable, he is a solid director. John Dahl hasn't done anything particularly memorable, and Lionsgate were willing to give him the movie.

What are you basing this on? Have you read his Punisher script

He didn't a script, as far as it got was him and Jane talking and hashing out a story. Lionsgate said no to him and so there was no, and so on.

And more to the point, since you don't think Jigsaw was anything close to proper, have you ever read a Punisher story involving Jigsaw?

 

[dft-313]

Who cares if something was memorable, he is a solid director. John Dahl hasn't done anything particularly memorable, and Lionsgate were willing to give him the movie.

He didn't a script, as far as it got was him and Jane talking and hashing out a story. Lionsgate said no to him and so there was no, and so on.

Dahl's done a couple of fantastic films in The Last Seduction and Red Rock West. solid efforts like Kill Me Again and then some good TV work. He's a good director who brings intelligence to anything he works on.

The reason Dahl ejected was that Lionsgate weren't putting any sort of money behind the projec and just wanted him to turn out a quick movie on budget that they hoped they could sell to gullible fans.

What's the point of bringing in talented guys and then ****ing them over?

I'm struggling to think of many good films Lionsgate's been involved in.

 

[S. Grundy]

Yeah Dahl has done some good stuff, Red Rock West is really good neo-noir film. He could've done a great Punisher movie. Hell, even Joy Ride was a pretty fun movie. But according to Guard's standards, he's no Lexi Alexander.

This is what he said;

"I actually thought I could make a better movie. But then when I really started thinking about what it was and the fact that the studio kind of didn't want to spend a whole lot of money, it was like "Do I want to do an action movie in 40 days? With a massive second unit?" Dahl goes on to state that the script "was not that good" -- Which is probably bad news for fans that were worried the studio was toying with the idea of turning the film into a straight to DVD cash grab.

 

[The Guard]

What do you mean fighting with what, he was fighting the studio on how the direction of the film should go in.

Fighting them with what? A kickass script he wrote?

Complaining constantly?

Because all I keep hearing is that he tried to bring people in to take over the project and not one of them had actually completed a script.

So what I'm asking...is...does anyone have any remote proof that anything "better" existed for Lionsgate to use?

I don't know, wait for the shooting to get to a lull at the front and toss a grenade or flash bang and then go to town. It's a bit more tactical then taking a chance like jumping 3 or 4 stories into a boarded up window.

How is that any smarter?

Frank, knowing full well he can jump through the boards, does so, and finds himself in a fantastic tactical position because of his location in relation to the gunmen inside.

You're suggesting he approach at the front, toss a flashbang or grenade and just wade right into where all the gunmen are. How is that all that tactically sound?

I don't know how many pounds of pressure it would take, but I do know you can't do it in one punch.

How do you know?

Maybe, but it was done in a way that was believable.

Sure, if you're able to suspend your disbelief in regard to the way physics work-WAITAMINUTE...

Not a personal problem, it was just horribly written

Didn't get that impression myself. Which specific dialogue did you think was horrible, hamfisted, etc, in those serious scenes?

And here's the thing about the whole "what Jane wanted" angle of our discussion.
Originally, I said:

(Jane) then walked off the sequel project just before it began to trend in the direction of the things that he professed to want that differed from the first film?

I never said the film was everything he wanted it to be.

To which you said:

What ended up on the screen is nothing like what Jane said he wanted out of a sequel.

Now when you say "nothing", I assume you mean that the film had none of the elements Jane stated that he wanted.

That is simply not the case.

They are good movies, he's a good director it's a fact. Why he hasn't done more work maybe personal.

It's difficult to take you seriously when you state an opinion as fact like that. I am not judging the man because he has not done more recent work. I am pointing out why a studio might not be inclined to trust a man who has not directed in ten years with this film.

Plenty of crappy movies have won awards. Crash won an Oscar, doesn't mean it's a good movie same with Forrest Gump.

It's also difficult to take you seriously when you say things like FORREST GUMP and CRASH are "crappy movies".

He was a caricature.

I will repeat my earlier question. Have you ever read a comic book with Jigsaw as the villain?

West's acting was so hammy it was laughable when he did kill someone

Then the movie apparently succeeded, because many of the deaths were supposed to be funny on some level. Especially when criminals died.

On the studio side of things, it was probably too dark, as per the Steven S. DeKnight drafts. And probably on the Jane side of things later scripts by Santora or Sutter were too goofy. Beattie didn't get too far on his draft before he left the project.

So what you're saying, essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong...is that no one knows squat about any of these drafts.

Who cares if something was memorable.

Well, if you're a director who wants to come back to directing after ten years without anything major...most studios do.

he is a solid director. John Dahl hasn't done anything particularly memorable, and Lionsgate were willing to give him the movie.

Obviously they weren't, because he didn't make the film.

He didn't a script, as far as it got was him and Jane talking and hashing out a story. Lionsgate said no to him and so there was no, and so on.

Wait a second...so the man didn't even have a script, wanted the project...and Lionsgate said no...and people are wondering why?

The reason Dahl ejected was that Lionsgate weren't putting any sort of money behind the projec and just wanted him to turn out a quick movie on budget that they hoped they could sell to gullible fans. What's the point of bringing in talented guys and then ****ing them over?

Hold on...

So Lionsgate fired him? Or he quit because they wouldn't give WAR ZONE a bigger budget, or because he didn't think he could handle the pressures of shooting it on a timeframe?