Jump to content

WHY ARE YOU SERVING BAD FISH?

IsaacHarris

By IsaacHarris
in ARCHIVE - Madonna

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nikki Veteran

Nikki

Posted
Posted

The movie that to me, makes her look like a real idiot is "who's that girl". I never got why fans are so crazy for this one. And believe it or not "the next best thing" is actually a fav. of a belgian channel here, they air the movie several times a year and call it their "classic". Lmao. But honestly this is a movie I can watch. its just a very easy family movie. Who's that girl on the other hand just doest do it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acko Mentor

acko

Posted
Posted

I love WTG & I love SA .

sweptaway.jpg

(sorry, I just can't help loving good crap).

I always want SA to b darker & harder..the rape scene should have been brutal.

But then I actually enjoy the Guy Ritchies quirkyness..

'From now on the plural 4 fish is fishes..' :wow:

That scene should b part of the curriculum at any acting/drama/theatre school.

ach ja, who am I kidding..Guido..peepee..just do me. :fag:

Wasn't the original director attatched 2 the remake 1st? I beleive Guy suggested he should do it instead.

Can anyone confirm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acko Mentor

acko

Posted
Posted

All hail Niki Finn & Amber Leighton..

I'm still looking 4 those SA clips where Madonna & the girls were keeping themselves

busy in between takes by making up cheerleader chants..

anyone? PUDSSSSSSSSSSSS??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peter Proficient

peter

Posted
Posted

And to imagine she started the shooting of this movie just weeks after Drowned World Tour ended.

Right -- and Chicago was due to start filming on September 11 -- but was delayed because of the terrorist attacks. (M was still finishing up her last few shows for DWT in the wake of the attacks, as well.)

She ditched Chicago for this??

Man, biggest mistake of her acting career. Although I hate to say, Chicago might have been snubbed at the Oscars had Madonna been in it :lol:

I wouldn't say she ditched CHICAGO for this film. It's just that they were being filmed at the same time. In 1999, she and Goldie Hawn were attached to the project with a different director... Then that director (reportedly) ditched Goldie Hawn for being too old, and then Madonna quit in solidarity. Without his leading ladies, that director was cut from the project (by Miramax, I guess?) -- and then the project was in limbo for another couple years. By the time the actual director (Rob Marshall) got attached to the project, I don't know for sure whether Madonna was a serious contender.

Though, if you notice that he had the actresses from the cast of NINE (which he also directed) go to see Sticky & Sweet live for inspiration, maybe he respects her and would have been okay with her in the film. But that is conjecture... don't actually know.

(And, of course, you make a valid point. It's possible that the film with Madonna could have been panned... not just for her acting, but if the other director had done it, who knows if it would have turned out as well as the Marshall-helmed version did. And we know M is very opinionated on set, as well -- had she challenged Marshall's vision or tried to assert her will, there could have been some friction/challenges. STILL -- M could have easily pulled off the singing and dancing -- and Catherine mostly had to pull off sultry, dazzling, and sarcastic/cynical/jaded. M could have handled that, too. Not saying better, just she wouldn't have been worse, either.)

Madonna would have been good in Chicago but Catherine Zeta owned that role.

She did, indeed. That's the only thing that makes me forgive the film. If someone untalented had played Velma, I think I would have permanently resented the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peter Proficient

peter

Posted
Posted

Nah it was Velma baby

Right! :thumbsup: (Looking at the photos from that Herb Ritts shoot -- where she has the short black hair and the black bobbed hair, used in the promotion of TIC -- you can tell she would have easily had the same look Catherine Zeta-Jones rocked in the film.)

I'd honestly like to forget this movie was ever made. And how the fuck could she turn Chicago down for this piece of trash? Madonna has zero taste in good film with a few exceptions.

See above... she wanted to do it earlier, but then it fell apart and when the project was a "go" again, she was already committed to other things. BUT -- you know how she is... She pursued EVITA for years. CHICAGO's themes and musical style would have been perfect fits for her, just like many saw the role of Eva Peron as a perfect fit for M's persona. It's a shame she didn't pursue the role of Velma as relentlessly. Back in the early 1980s, Bob Fosse (the director of the original Broadway production) was going to make the film version and expressed his desire for Madonna to star... then he passed away suddenly and the project was in limbo for years and years and years... No one wanted to touch it out of a sort of reverence for Fosse and not wanting to work in his shadow.

Wasnt she off Chicago for a while before SA?

Yes, yes... see above. Sorry if I gave the impression that it was like she had the choice of one or the other at the exact same moment and chose unwisely. But, like I said, she could have lobbied for the part as hard as she did for Evita and the results may have been different. The scheduling difficulties may have played a factor -- as we know DWT wasn't set to wrap before filming was to begin... Historic events (9/11) ended up making it theoretically possible for her to have participated, but by then it was too late -- Catherine would obviously have been cast prior to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...