Rush Hour 3 is a go!

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Jul 2006, 21:26

grim_tales wrote:Gasteropod do you mean Shanghai Noon is better than Shanghai Knights?

Indeed

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 17 Jul 2006, 21:43

grim_tales wrote:Gasteropod do you mean Shanghai Noon is better than Shanghai Knights?

Grim, isn't there an online quiz that's titled similar to that other one? Maybe something like:
Could You Pass 4th Grade Maths?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 Jul 2006, 21:48

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 29 Jul 2006, 16:35

THEY HAVE CAST Roman Polanski in ths film!

Good, give a sicko child rapist a job

I have never heard anything as shit as this in my life! the man deserves to be in prison, not making cash from films! Thats fucked up beyond words! Evil pedophile piece of shit is wanted still by american law and been on the run for most his life. Scum deserves death in my eyes.

Ratner loves the man and is friends, shows you what a fuck Ratner really is if he hangs out with that type of person!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 29 Jul 2006, 17:44

romerojpg wrote:THEY HAVE CAST Roman Polanski in ths film! Good, give a sicko child rapist a job I have never heard anything as shit as this in my life! the man deserves to be in prison, not making cash from films! Thats fucked up beyond words! Evil pedophile piece of shit is wanted still by american law and been on the run for most his life. Scum deserves death in my eyes. Ratner loves the man and is friends, shows you what a fuck Ratner really is if he hangs out with that type of person!

Bloody hell. You'd think the guy was Jack the fucking Ripper or something? He had sex with a 13 year old girl at a Hollywood party almost 30 years ago. He made a drunken/drugged-up mistake and she shouldn't have been there. he did wrong, so I'm not excusing him at all. But I hardly think that brands him a paedo for life. Serious, Romero, get a grip.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 29 Jul 2006, 17:58

Have you even read the facts of the case then? as you make it sound like some mistake anyone could make, its far more nasty than you portray it thats for sure. Read a few well documented, detailed accounts of it and you would change your mind as your description makes it sound tame, its far from that.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Jul 2006, 17:59

I agree with you on this Mark, as you say it was a long time ago, but aren't you the first to say that someone who takes drugs or something or got pissed has not made a "mistake", locking your keys inside your car is mistake, and the person who does something serious should be put away?
I don't want to open this again so I'll shut up

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 29 Jul 2006, 18:09

grim_tales wrote:I agree with you on this Mark, as you say it was a long time ago, but aren't you the first to say that someone who takes drugs or something or got pissed has not made a "mistake", locking your keys inside your car is mistake, and the person who does something serious should be put away?
I don't want to open this again so I'll shut up

No idea what you are on about at all.

He was not drunk or drugged at all, He planned it, picked the girl he knew was 13 and raped her after drugging her. He later admitted in court he did it, then fled the country.

Yeah he did nothing wrong at all

it was just a "mistake" he picked her and raped her.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 29 Jul 2006, 18:23

Let's be clear: What Polanski did was definately wrong and he should have gone to jail for it. I'm not saying otherwise. But you're typical "shoot 'em in the face" attitude is OTT. A one-off sexual encounter with a teenage girl, however immoral, does not make Polanski a paedo or a monster. That's all I'm saying.

Interesting link:
http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/20/features/story1.html

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 29 Jul 2006, 18:26

romerojpg wrote:He was not drunk or drugged at all, He planned it, picked the girl he knew was 13 and raped her after drugging her. He later admitted in court he did it, then fled the country.

You're right, she was drugged, not him. I got that part wrong. The charge was statutory rape which isn't the same as regular rape. It's more a technicality than anything else. He coerced her into sex, but didn't brutalise or use violence against her. Still very wrong, but not as unforgiveably hideous as you make out.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 29 Jul 2006, 18:36

And hey, Rosemary's Baby is an amazing film

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 29 Jul 2006, 23:54

His adaptation of MacBeth is the best Shakespeare film EVER made. Kenneth Branagh , Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles' efforts can't hold a candle to it.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 30 Jul 2006, 10:59

Yeah his Macbeth (1971) was pretty good I thought.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 30 Jul 2006, 13:46

and I am sure he is an amazing actor as well...

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 30 Jul 2006, 14:03

Does anyone else think that Tucker's "Damn... he ain't gonna be in Rush Hour 3" (followed by Chan's "what?") is the greatest outtake of all time? I love it.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 30 Jul 2006, 14:12

The only thing in the movie that made me laugh.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 30 Jul 2006, 22:51

Haha I don't think an outtake will ever top that. Best outtake ever.

dragonhero005 · Post by **dragonhero005** » 08 Aug 2006, 05:52

Jean Claude Van Damme is going to be in Rush Hour 3. Maybe he´s even going to play the main villian.

Source: JC-News

This article also has some more or less interesting information about the Chan/Li project...

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 08 Aug 2006, 17:15

I hope he is in it! but sadly I cannot see them using him well surley? time will tell

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 23 Aug 2006, 15:26

Jean Claude Van Damme signed on to play the lead villain in "Rush Hour 3". Van Damme announced the casting news on a recent British TV Show, and said that he is looking forward to working with Jackie Chan.

LOL! I'm so looking forward to this film.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 23 Aug 2006, 15:40

Whoa! OK, let me see. $25 Mio. for Chris Tucker. $15 Mio. for Jackie and $8 Mio. for Brett Ratner. That's $48 Mio. gone from the total budget of $120 Mio.

WTF? Give me just 1 Million or a bit less and I can make you a great film. Not necessarily a huge action comedy, but a film with a good story and actors that might be unknown, but good.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 23 Aug 2006, 15:45

Yeah, i also often think that way. I feel I could do much better with just a fraction of the budget they use for most of these movies.
Paying more then 10-15 million for an actor is absolute nonsense... IMHO. If I was an actor I wouldnt even want to take part in a movie that would waste such a huge amount of the budget solely for an actor...
I'd rather work for free and get a percentage of the profits... and I feel most, if not all, actors should do the same, as it makes them all do their very very best...

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Aug 2006, 17:08

$25m for Chris Tucker???

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 25 Aug 2006, 00:03

Hmmmm... it looks like the whole Van Damme thing is just a rumour. Let's wait and see.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 11 Oct 2006, 15:27

Thanks to Wendy from the JC Board:

The first shots from the set of RH 3 ---

Image source - dayoo.com