A Rant and theory

[replicanthunter]

it seems that anyone that was in Star Wars gets this unfair treatment-My god with any article on Mr.Ford i always read about this film or that film of his was a bomb-Big Deal-DeNiro,Pacino,Bruce Willis have Way more bombs than Mr.Ford,yet they seem to get treated better-of course they were not in Star Wars,Then Mr Ford does an Indy episode and people(the press,so called fans) still bitch about it.What was wrong with it?
So now with Extraordinary Measures that sort of bitching is evident again
It is simple jealously on fellow actors or people that feel they own Star wars,or Indiana Jones that want to bad mouth ,i see it with Natalie Portman,Hayden Christensen,Mark Hamill,Carre Fisher as well
Trouble is these so called bombs of his are usually very good films-maybe not Star Wars or Indiana Jones but worthy of recognition-Random Hearts,Firewall,Sabrina,The Devil's Own and Extraordinary Measures,etc-
Also the fact Lucas is not a team player(DGA) And plays by his own rules and that pisses people off.
i enjoyed his newst film,glad he took a chance and tried something about something,too bad its not being seen-but i am recomending it

[Sallah]

Do you really want to know what's wrong with "Skull"??? Watch it.

Random Hearts,Firewall and Sabrina are no good movies. That's why we are sad.We want to see Ford in good movies again.

[Max]

See, and I kinda liked Sabrina (not as much as the original which I loved), but yes, I think we'd all like to see him in 'good' movies, taking chances with different roles. I'd love to see him in a real romantic comedy like It's Complicated, where there is an age appropriate storyline and great ensemble cast. As for X Measures, I liked it and was pleasantly surprised by Brendan Fraser's performance. Fraser was on Rachael Ray this morning and was hysterical - he and Ford should make a comedy together!

[Ajax the Great]

I think that people sort of turn their noses up at actors born out of franchises. With any film series, there's always a good deal of resentment. They always have bigger budgets, more attention, and bigger box office grosses - but they don't always have hard-hitting plots, deeply developed characters, etc. I'm not saying this is the case for Star Wars or Indiana Jones, but this is the source of some of the criticism. Smaller budget films that are actually quite good are shunned by the public and are always overshadowed by blockbusters.

In Harrison's case, there's probably also a resentment for his success. Most people don't view him as a versatile actor, and in some cases I have to agree with them. He's very good at the desperate man trying to save his family, kids, etc. So people started bitching about how he does the same old stuff all the time. So in the past 10 years or so, Harrison strayed from that immensely, and people started freaking out. Random Hearts was a romantic drama, he was the baddie in What Lies Beneath, K-19 was a historical drama, Hollywood Homicide was a comedy, and so on. The only standard Harrison Ford movie was Firewall.

So now people are bitching because he's trying to be versatile. I think he is, but he's not picking scripts to showcase that. Most of his reviews over the past 10 years have begun with: "Despite Harrison Ford's good performance, this movie..." The mediocre/poor quality of his movies is overshadowing his performances.

I think what frustrates Harrison fans is that he's becoming too much of a collaborator. Legend has it that he was attached to the production and development of Firewall for years before it came to fruition. What? How could anybody spend years on a movie that's already been done before, by Harrison and by other filmmakers? Don't get me wrong, Firewall is decent entertainment for a rainy Sunday afternoon, but some bells and whistles should have been going off.

I need to digress a little bit here. My biggest gripe with EM is that Harrison actually used his executive producer power to manipulate the story so that he'd have a role. Robert Stonehill doesn't exist - he's a composite character! Dr. Yuan-Tsong Chen was the real leader of the treatment for Pompe, along with numerous other scientists. As an aspiring neuroscientist, I'm really frustrated that Harrison manipulated the story and took attention away from Chen just so he could have THAT role in the movie. I lost an ounce of respect for Harrison. He said that he took on the project 5 years ago because he was so moved by the story, but then he made a major, major change. Was he motivated by the story, or by its potential for his career? It doesn't seem to matter, since the movie has hardly made a splash at the box office or with critics.

[nukejane12]

Originally Posted by Ajax the Great

My biggest gripe with EM is that Harrison actually used his executive producer power to manipulate the story so that he'd have a role. Robert Stonehill doesn't exist - he's a composite character! Dr. Yuan-Tsong Chen was the real leader of the treatment for Pompe, along with numerous other scientists. As an aspiring neuroscientist, I'm really frustrated that Harrison manipulated the story and took attention away from Chen just so he could have THAT role in the movie. I lost an ounce of respect for Harrison.

I have read several comments at various sites, most of them quoting Roger Ebert, that Stonehill was based on Dr. Chen and that is not true. Ebert didn't research the story very well. Stonehill was most likely based on Dr. William Canfield who WAS in business with John Crowley and considered something of a maverick. So far as I can discern, Crowley was NEVER in business with Dr. Chen. Here are a couple of supporting articles, http://www.pitchengine.com/oklahomad...ndustry/41834/ and http://newsok.com/article/3353428 . I am certain that the second article was the one I read when the movie was in development; however, I'm not buying a subscription just to read one article now. I am certain I also read an interview with Canfield about meeting HF and how it felt to be portrayed by him. For whatever reason, Canfield was dropped from the project and the fictional Stonehill was invented. In addition, in the movie, Stonehill did not choose his drug for development but another one that was further along and could go to trials more quickly.

I hope this changes your opinion and Harrison regains that little bit of respect. From what I read early on, I think HF intended to portray Canfield and things didn't work out so they came up with a fictional character.

[Ajax the Great]

Thanks so much for the info. You're absolutely right, I remember that Harrison was listed as a "Dr. Canfield" when this project was first listed on IMDb. Chen was one of the major researchers for the final therapy, but Canfield was the guy that Crowley actually went into business with. Thanks again. Respect regained!

[replicanthunter]

Sallah...
-Never mind,not worth my time.

[Ajax the Great]

Originally Posted by replicanthunter

Sallah...
-Never mind,not worth my time.

I disagree with Sallah on some points also. Say what you will about CS, but the fact remains that it made bank at the box office. At the end of the day, studios care more about this than about absolute quality. So as far as Harrison, Lucas, Spielberg, and Paramount are concerned - Skull was gold.

There's a distinction to be made between a good Harrison movie and a good movie. I know I keep saying this, but it's true - Harrison's performance is always mentioned as the strong point of an otherwise bad movie.

Also, in response to your first post, I think people have even higher expectations for Harrison because he's the only actor to remain in the public eye post Star Wars. It's ironical, but he's the only one that has a legitimate career. People resent him for that, and they resent him because they haven't had much to criticize. He followed up Star Wars and Indy with a slew of fantastic movies met with critical and financial success. Since 1997, Harrison hasn't had much luck. K-19, Hollywood Homicide, and Crossing Over were all unsuccessful at the box office; and his others, The Devil's Own, Six Days Seven Nights, Random Hearts, and Firewall were only mediocre successes. The only majorly successful movies on a box office level were Air Force One, What Lies Beneath, and Indiana Jones. Out of 10 movies since 1997, only 3 were majorly financially successful. So that's why all the resenters are piling on their criticism now.

My own opinions on his movies have been generally mixed to positive - I'm no resenter :)

[Sallah]

@ajax
But you wrote about "Skull": "I attribute that success more to the franchise and the nostalgia"

You are right about this.