Tony Jaa Says No to "Rush Hour 3," "Yes! Yes!

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 17 Aug 2006, 12:12

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comm ... yid=354508

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 17 Aug 2006, 18:32

Pity - I'd like to have seen him in Rush Hour 3.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Aug 2006, 19:10

BiscLimpkit wrote:Pity - I'd like to have seen him in Rush Hour 3.

Why waste his time on such a project? I'd rather see him keep making his own movies, instead of already crossing over to Hollywood to dumb buddy-cop action flicks...
He could end up as Mark Dacascos if he goes to Hollywood.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Aug 2006, 19:17

LOL, the truncated thread's title made it look like that LD was happy that Jaa won't be in Rush Hour 3.

Tony Jaa Says No to "Rush Hour 3," "Yes! Yes!

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Aug 2006, 19:22

EvaUnit02 wrote:LOL, the truncated thread's title made it look like that LD was happy that Jaa won't be in Rush Hour 3.

Tony Jaa Says No to "Rush Hour 3," "Yes! Yes!

Yeah, that confused me at first lol.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 17 Aug 2006, 21:33

I liked the two rush hours...

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Aug 2006, 21:46

I liked them 2, but I wouldnt want to see Tony Jaa wasted in it cause A: Jackie sure as hell wont allow Jaa to outshine him, and B; he's most like be a villain, and C; he just wouldnt have the freedom to do his own kick-ass stuff.
I'd rather see him keep doing what he does best...

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 17 Aug 2006, 23:33

Hmmm once again Yi, you raise interesting points. I didn't consider any of those things before I made my comment. Wonder if he'll be in Indy 4 then (I'm not going nuts over that movie or anything - I'm looking forward to Rush Hour 3 more).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Aug 2006, 01:14

I agree with Yi-long to but based solely on Ong-bak he needs to stick to sports shows and give up the acting.

Ong-bak was so average, dull in places.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 18 Aug 2006, 01:26

Ong-Bak, and to an extent Tom Yum Goong, suffered from what Simon Wyndham (fella who co-directed The Silencer) said; the twiddling of thumbs until the next action set-piece.
Jaa's intense physicality made those films watchable, and the momentum was kept by having those fight sequences regular occurrences as well as the odd bit of comedy, but aside from the that, the stories were hokey and had been done before.
Whatever happens, be it Rush Hour 3 or the fourth Indy film, he does need to show more range to be truly successful as an actor.

Just my two cents.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 18 Aug 2006, 01:29

I felt Ong-Bak was great. Yeah the story was so-so and the acting was mediocre, but it's a movie that was made for the action an to showcase Tony. For a first movie (I know he did other movies but not really as a lead) it was a very good beginning. Plus he brought action-martial arts back to a whole higher level.

I didnt really feel it was 'dull' ... it's just that the action-scenes are so great that everything else you just want to get over with ASAP.

Tom Yum Goong is a horrible movie though, but the action is even better then Ong-Bak... so that's very very promising for the future,as Tony seems to want to keep improving and bring us new exciting stuff each and every new movie.

dragonhero005 · Post by **dragonhero005** » 18 Aug 2006, 05:53

I´d have also liked to see him in Rush Hour 3.
Not in a big role... a cameo would be enough... and I´m sure he could find time to make a special guest appearance... but I guess Ratner wanted him to be the main villian...

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 18 Aug 2006, 12:53

im glad hes not in rush hour 3. that would have sucked big time....actually im kinda bummed there is even a rush hour 3...the words "done to death" come to mind. i liked the first 2. but a 3rd ones stretching it alot...

i agree with yi's points, Jaa in this movie would just look crap, he'd be the sereotypical bad guy. jackie is to egotistical to let Jaa have the freedom to show off his great skills. and he'd just look a fool tbh. and i would think that those who hadnt seen Jaa before in his other movies, wouldnt want to see him because he'd just be some bad guy with little screen time and probably a crappy role....so its probably a good thing hes said no...

dragonhero005 · Post by **dragonhero005** » 18 Aug 2006, 14:40

Shen wrote:i agree with yi's points, Jaa in this movie would just look crap, he'd be the sereotypical bad guy. jackie is to egotistical to let Jaa have the freedom to show off his great skills.

I cannot agree with you about that. Maybee he wouldn´t give him the freedom to choreograph a whole fighing scene, but Jaa could definitly show off his skills. When two professionals meet and exchange ideas the effect looks awesome in most cases...

By the way:

Gary Daniels never looked as good in a movie as in City Hunter.
Richard Norton never looked as good in a movie as in those he did with Jackie.
Benny Urquidez never looked as good in a movie as in DF and WoM
Ken Lo never looked as good in a movie as in DM2

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 18 Aug 2006, 14:46

in his older movies yes jackie was good, but in his newer movies he seems to have become more egotistical in both movies and life...

but then im just not keen on the idea of more buddy pictures starring jackie chan....i mean hes done too many and they are boring by now. ok i just dislike chris tucker too. but Jaa just wouldnt suit this kind of buddy picture funny movie....hes a straight actor and fighter, or has been in his last two movies, and tbh his acting is stiff and laboured, only his fights make the movies great...i dont see him working well in RH3 and im glad he said no...just wish jackie had said no too...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Aug 2006, 20:58

TBH I found the Ong-bak action overrated too.

I hated it when Jackie showed the same set piece from a different angle in Police Story and it didn't get any better here.

I'm not bothered either way if he's in RH3. I like both Rush Hours but that's mainly because of the great way CT and JC play off each other.

Oh and Jaa's English is said to be awful so I can only imagine he'll either: Barely speak or sound awful. English doesn't come naturally to most Thais.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 18 Aug 2006, 23:43

bradavon wrote:English doesn't come natural to most Thais.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Aug 2006, 00:52

Oops that happens every time.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 19 Aug 2006, 02:54

Oh, I love to see the same take from another angle. That's just Jackie's style. He sometimes even repeats a kick or so from the same angle in a very fast cut. BAM! Totally awesome.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 Aug 2006, 19:09

It's a bit bizarre when the shot from a different angle is actually a different take though, like the clock tower fall on Project A :S

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 20 Aug 2006, 02:46

The clock tower fall is not shown from a different angle. It's a different take, though.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 20 Aug 2006, 14:21

Oh yeah, I know that, I was just referring to the fact that it's a repeat shot kind of thing.

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 22 Aug 2006, 12:31

Yeah, not only did the bugger fall down once... he did it again! (And you can see he's gotta be hurting when he lands in atleast one of those takes!

)

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 22 Aug 2006, 12:41

He says that he did it three times. In fact, we see three different falls in the film (two in the main feature and one during the outtakes). I have heard though that several other stuntmen have tried the fall.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Aug 2006, 13:46

I think JC said in his autobio one of his stuntmen did it first

Bullets 'n' Babes

Tony Jaa Says No to "Rush Hour 3," "Yes! Yes!

Tony Jaa Says No to "Rush Hour 3," "Yes! Yes!" to Indy 4