Community Login: (Create an Account)
Search the Site:
I kind of torn between whether or not a Lethal Weapon 5 is a good idea. At one end, Gibson needs to win his fans and public support back after the controversy surrounding his drunken driving/anti-Semetic remarks scandal. Also, Harrison Ford during a fourth Indiana Jones, Bruce Willis doing a fourth Die Hard, Sylvester Stallone doing a sixth Rocky and fourth Rambo, Arnold Schwarzenegger doing a third Terminator (12 years after the second), and recently, Eddie Murphy planning to do a fourth Beverly Hills Cop are recent examples of older actors revisting well known action-adventure franchises in order to prove that they can still kick ass.Mel Gibson has ruled out a return to the Lethal Weapon franchise.
The actor, who starred as cop Martin Riggs in the first four instalments of the action series, told MTV that he has little interest in reprising the role.
"I couldn't imagine going back there to try to revive that one," he said. "I think we got everything we could out of it."
Interest in a new Lethal Weapon was sparked last year when original writer Shane Black penned an outline for a fifth movie, attracting producer Joel Silver. However, according to series director Richard Donner, the film collapsed when Gibson snubbed an offer to return.
"Of course these things always come around," Gibson continued. "Five though? Five?! Please."
Gibson will return to the big screen in November after a six-year absence to star in Martin Campbell's Edge Of Darkness.
On the other end, I kind of agree with Gibson that it's going to be awfully hard to figure out other places to take the Lethal Weapon saga. The fourth one felt like a big old family reunion, with the "Why Can't We Be Friends" montage at the end, seemingly further driving home the point that this was going to be the last one. Plus, I kind of like the fact that in the first one, Martin Riggs is this burned out, depressed, suicidal cop, and by the fourth movie, he's able to remarry and becomes a father (talk about character evolution). Gibson was reluctant to do a Lethal Weapon 4, but decided to go for it after receiving a fat paycheck.
The only way that I could see a Lethal Weapon 5 working is that they do a geopolticial storyline that's relevant to whatever is going on in the news right now. Like the second one, talked about aparthide, the third one talked about gun control, and the fourth one talked about slavery and immigration issues.
Last edited by TMC1982; 02-16-2009 at 12:43 AM.
recent examples of older actors revisting well known action-adventure franchises in order to prove that they can still kick ass.
See, thats the part that bugs most viewers. When you know a project is motivated purely by a need to make money or prove some star's staying power, the whole thing becomes rather shallow. Mel is right to stay away. Number four was a fun conclusion if I remember correctly.
After the fourth film, I'd be rather unenthusiastic about a fifth one as well. Especially since it would probably not only have the entire cast of LW4, but also a bunch of new characters as well, adding even more to an already-overcrowded cast.
Mel couldn't have said it better.
I mean, Live Or Die Hard worked, even with the PG-13 rating, but that's because Bruce Willis has almost always been in action movies and looks skilled.
When was the last time Mel started in an action movie anyways?
And just when I started thinking that everyone in Hollywood is a moron (okay, I admit, I've thought this way for years), here comes Mel with a lick of common sense. The action film genre is littered with the embarassing dregs of actors, directors and fans who can't wrap their minds around the fact that even the toughest leading men can't win the inevitable battle with father time. Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Charles Bronson (oh, hell, I'll even put Steve Martin in that list. The only revelation I got from the trailer of Pink Panther 2 is that he's getting WAY too old for that kind of slapstick), etc.; when you get to the point when your stunt double and CGI avatar have more screen time than you do, it's time to hang it up.
Stick to your guns, Mel. Break the trend, take the Clint Eastwood route and grow old with grace and dignity.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
To me this isn't even about the stunts or condition of the main actor. It's much more about the story...but that's just me not being realistic about how Hollywood works, I suppose.
Case in point? I thought the Indiana Jones movies were better left untouched, I don't care how in shape Harrison Ford still is. If there isn't a good story there (wrinkled Marion, his long-lost son and aliens?), just leave it be.
great in their recent outings bringing back their most well-known characters. Anybody who's watched the documentary for Crystal Skull can see just how much stuff Ford did on his own, and it's amazing for someone his age. Same for Stallone and Willis. Sure, they had doubles and whatnot, but lots of stuff they still performed themselves. It's a tiresome argument, really. "They're over 50? Well, then everything they do just has to be handled with CGI and doubles." pffft! They may be "old" (for lack of a better word), but those movies showed they still packed a punch and could do it just as good as they always did.
I have no doubt Mel Gibson would be equally as good in an action movie after all these years and am hoping to one day see him return in one. Just not Lethal Weapon 5. The fourth one was bad enough.
Gibson and Glover are literally "too old for this "****" already.
The "Old-School Cartoon Network Nostalgia Thread":
|toonzone quick jump|