48 replies to this topic

[Blueblood]

Unless it's a prequel, in which case the pay checks will be a lot cheaper and scheduling wouldn't be a problem..!

[mad-wolfie]

Blueblood said:

Unless it's a prequel,

the jury is still out on that one.. i'll wait to see what the reception of the Star Trek prequel is like before i pass judgement on a potential "BB<1" & it's been a bit too close to the release of the film to know for sure - if in 12 months time the trekkers & trekies are hailing it as a successful & welcomed arm of the franchise, i'll say a BB film may work.

[bbcentral]

mad-wolfie said:

the jury is still out on that one.. i'll wait to see what the reception of the Star Trek prequel is like before i pass judgement on a potential "BB<1" & it's been a bit too close to the release of the film to know for sure - if in 12 months time the trekkers & trekies are hailing it as a successful & welcomed arm of the franchise, i'll say a BB film may work.

Well, Star Trek is almost universally acknowledged to be a success:
Star Trek Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes
95% is a ridiculously high rating amongst reviewers.
And it's not a prequel, it's a reboot, where the timeline changed and they can redo the whole story arc without breaking what was previously established. So it can't be compared with a potential Blues Brothers prequel.

Personally I wouldn't want a prequel, I think that it would make for a boring movie. It's fascinating to find out how Jake and Elwood became the characters in the movie, and it's fun to read in Blues Brothers: Private, but it's not worthy of a separate movie. How would it end? With Jake going to prison? I think that would be a lousy ending. But Jake getting released from prison was a great opening to the movie, by contrast.

Prequels should be restricted to books, fan fiction, etc. The first 2 movies were set at the same time they were released. If Blues Brothers 3 is released in 2011, it should be set in 2011. It should follow on from BB2K.

I didn't mind Chris Pine replacing William Shatner in Star Trek, because it was essentially a parallel universe, with it's own timeline after the death of Kirk's father. I wouldn't want to see anyone else play Jake Blues, and I don't think any amount of money would convince Dan to replace John Belushi, even if it was a prequel.

The only concession I'd potentially allow for is if they wanted to somehow blend the prequel scenes in, so the movie could show segments from Jake and Elwood's lives, interspersed with current day events.

[WatchBreaker]

Father Elwood said:

These guys are hitting their older years. They're getting fat, old, and squeaky. They need to oil up their joints every mornin'. Point is, I just don't know... I'm not saying he can't do it, but even by Blues Brothers 2000 I had a feeling he lost a lot of what he once had. Elwood just wasn't the same. Then again, I still loved the sequel to pieces.

I have not seen Dan Aykroyd's most recent film that I know of... he was in I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, and from what I've seen, he still does well... but can you really see that guy getting up and dancing and singing and seizuring (in a good way)? I'm just unsure. 55 really isn't that old, but do you guys really think Elwood would be Elwood at 55?

In BB2000, he was already lecturing Buster. "Don't do bad things," yadda yadda. After another 10 years, how do you think he would've changed? He left with Buster and they because fugitives on the run. Maybe Buster could be the new heir, but to me he seems a little young... An über fan such as myself is just a little uneasy about the idea.

Elwood didn't strike me as being the same. I think age did have a lot to do with it in and of itself. In the first movie, Jake was very much the brains of what was going on, and they had a clear mission: get money for the orphanage. Elwood was the silent, wait in the background type of guy and a skilled (and dare I say...magical?) driver. With Jake gone, they basically tried to make Elwood take up a lot of what used to be Jake's roles.

In BB2000...first of all, Elwood's first song left a REALLY bad impression on me. I just hated it. It didn't fit Elwood at all.

Moving on, there wasn't much of a plot...at all. Elwood didn't react very strongly to Jake's death. He moves on from it really fast, when IMO it should have probably been the primary motivator for Elwood reforming the band. The only other motivator to speak of was the Strip Club burning down...which also didn't go well for me. What Elwood did was kinda funny...but come on...he should have known that would just piss them off. The pseudo-religious motivator kinda failed for me too. Before, the religious parts seemed cartoonish... BB2000 Elwood was actually trying to rationalize getting his friend's Strip Club burned down as a divine intervention. All of these factors, to me, make Elwood come off as a old fuddy-duddy going through a life crisis who is pulling a lot of other people along with him.

There was also no real reason to recruit Mighty Mack...he wasn't a spectacular singer, and didn't fill Jake's role in the band very well. It was too obvious that he was just a filler character for Zee since he couldn't make it. Buster was just unnecessary. The only one who made any real sense was Cab, since he had the excuse of being Curtis's son, but he got recruited so near the end it seemed really random by then, especially since they were opponents through the rest of the movie.

Also...the dancing was just not there. It was important to their act, and was very lacking. (Buster's just looked silly) BB1980 Elwood had some really crazy, unique, and entertaining dances... BB2000 Elwood...we're lucky if he rotates his body more than 90 degrees.

Personally, I would have waited until Brother Zee was available before making this moving, and essentially have him fill Jake's shoes. Elwood is depressed about Jake's death, he somehow meets up with Zee, who he learns also enjoys the blues. Zee tries to find a way to make Elwood feel better, and learns of the Blues Brothers Band. He pulls Elwood into reforming the band, and the tale unfolds, with Zee actually acting like a brother to Elwood, getting him through these difficult times, and revitalizing his spirit and love for the blues. This would allow Zee to take the place of the one doing most of the talking, with Elwood maintaining his role as a man of few words, and avoid putting multiple new members of the band that come off as being filler characters.

Well, that's my opinion. I just think they went in the wrong direction with this movie. It wasn't necessarily bad...but a lot of things were very off.

[mad-wolfie]

WatchBreaker said:

Elwood didn't strike me as being the same. I think age did have a lot to do with it in and of itself.....

true, but think about it.. how would you react if you were watching your dad at a wedding reception?

Someone once said of the Blues Brothers "it's about the music" so OK let's focus on that. Do we really need to see some 50+ year olds doing back-flips & throwing themselves off stages when the musical repertoire should & always will be the backbone of the Blues Brothers. We didn't see Ray Charles leaping about in the original film but the song choreography worked well by having the people in the background doing the dancing & all the energetic stuff.

I'm sure if BB3 is/was ever made that John Landis would know where to get some energetic young dance troops to do the leaping around leaving the heroes to tell the story the film is portraying. After all when you see some of the legendary blues artists performances, many just feature the artists sitting on a stool with a mic in front of them & either a guitar or a harmonica in their hand.

WatchBreaker said:

In the first movie, Jake was very much the brains of what was going on, and they had a clear mission: get money for the orphanage. Elwood was the silent, wait in the background type of guy and a skilled (and dare I say...magical?) driver. With Jake gone, they basically tried to make Elwood take up a lot of what used to be Jake's roles.

Although i can see where you are coming from, i have to say i don't 100% agree. Jake was probably the more reckless & the most dominant of the 2 brothers because he was the elder brother, but after Jake died, who was left to take the role on?

Both Brothers seemed to have their dominant streak which was evident when Elwood insisted Jake keep his promise to visit the penguin, Elwood became the dominant Brother & Elwood again took the lead in the way to the ballroom scene when he planned ahead by doctoring the vehicles that were likely to persue them, so he had some leadership potential there, it seems to me it was somewhat supressed by Jake's "bigger brother" lifestyle.

Jake with his plan was very much done by the seat of the pants, Elwood seemed to plan & prepare his actions a lot more & was willing to take the responsibility with it, which was evident in the 2nd film because he had the plan thought out properly & he also realised he had to help his friends when they got into trouble, where Jake more or less just wanted to help himself without the burden of responsibility, other than to use people to get what he wanted.

[WatchBreaker]

mad-wolfie said:

true, but think about it.. how would you react if you were watching your dad at a wedding reception?

Someone once said of the Blues Brothers "it's about the music" so OK let's focus on that. Do we really need to see some 50+ year olds doing back-flips & throwing themselves off stages when the musical repertoire should & always will be the backbone of the Blues Brothers. We didn't see Ray Charles leaping about in the original film but the song choreography worked well by having the people in the background doing the dancing & all the energetic stuff.

I'm sure if BB3 is/was ever made that John Landis would know where to get some energetic young dance troops to do the leaping around leaving the heroes to tell the story the film is portraying. After all when you see some of the legendary blues artists performances, many just feature the artists sitting on a stool with a mic in front of them & either a guitar or a harmonica in their hand.

I don't know, and I don't really understand your rhetorical question. Can you clarify or come up with a different one, or at least tell me what my answer should be?

I don't recall Elwood's dancing being that extreme...maybe I over emphasized the "crazy" part. I just meant his footwork was very unique...and it disappointed me to not really see it at all. He had a lot of fancy footwork...I would by no means expect backflips out of them like Jake did back in the day...I can agree they were probably too old for that. But they didn't break a sweat in the second movie.

I agree that the music is probably the most important part but would not that, therefore, the dancing doesn't/shouldn't matter. Maybe it's just me, but when you have the Blues Brothers' amazing style of singing and dancing and then just remove the dancing part, I feel like there's a hole. Also, I was generally speaking about the dancing of the Blues Brothers specifically. I don't know...maybe it was there and I didn't see it. It just seemed like a lot of there dancing was simple and synchronized, where as the old format had Jake as the main singer with Elwood as a secondary singer while doing a lot of the entertaining dancing.

Quote

Although i can see where you are coming from, i have to say i don't 100% agree. Jake was probably the more reckless & the most dominant of the 2 brothers because he was the elder brother, but after Jake died, who was left to take the role on?

Jake was older? I know John was older but I could've sworn I've heard Elwood say "my little brother Jake"... (Not in the movie...in live gigs and stuff)

Anywho, as I said, I would have waited until Zee could be in the movie and have him be more of a driving force in the plot. Jake and Elwood complemented eachother, and I think Zee could have filled Jake's role well, and we would actually have a reason to be there...being Jake/John's brother. Mack was a bartender with average singing skills, Buster was some kid, and Cab would have made a bit of sense but was late to the party.

Quote

Both Brothers seemed to have their dominant streak which was evident when Elwood insisted Jake keep his promise to visit the penguin, Elwood became the dominant Brother & Elwood again took the lead in the way to the ballroom scene when he planned ahead by doctoring the vehicles that were likely to persue them, so he had some leadership potential there, it seems to me it was somewhat supressed by Jake's "bigger brother" lifestyle.

Elwood did have his moments. But it still seems Jake drove most of the plot. He was the one really pushing to get the band together, he was the BSing Bob into letting them play, BSing the Good Ol' Boys into standing around, and BSing Bob again to escape. He did the talking at Ray's Music Exchange. He motivated Murph and the Magictones and delt with Maury, and did most of the talking around Mr. Fabulous, and was the one getting stalked by his girlfriend and had to deal with her. Elwood is just quieter. He has his own quirks and his own way of doing things, like punching out glass with his hat and sabotaging cars, and yes he did make Jake go see the penguin but Jake didn't have a lot of opportunity to refuse and Elwood had already started going inside.

The best analogy I could make is that Jake & Elwood are like Mario & Luigi...more specifically from the M&L: Superstar Saga series. Umm...sorry if that doesn't tell you much. But generally they have distinct personalities that complement each other, they are both in the game at all times, but one is generally the leader and the other stays out of the spotlight but still manages to have a presence that would leave an emptiness if removed, despite not being up front and active in what's going on (but, of course, still has his moments.)

Quote

Jake with his plan was very much done by the seat of the pants, Elwood seemed to plan & prepare his actions a lot more

As evidenced by when he pissed off the Russians (again) as a way to recruit Mr. Fabulous and covered his head in shaving cream as a way of fooling the cops at Bob's restaurant? I found those incidents to be pretty reckless and "done by the seat of his pants".

Quote

& was willing to take the responsibility with it, which was evident in the 2nd film because he had the plan thought out properly & he also realised he had to help his friends when they got into trouble, where Jake more or less just wanted to help himself without the burden of responsibility, other than to use people to get what he wanted.

The only difference I saw between their plans was that Elwood was willing to admit his plan was failing and let his band members go home if they wanted (which came up because they were actually GOING to leave.) His plan wasn't any more "thought-out" IMO, unless you have an example (I haven't seen this movie as many times as BB1980.) He was still willing to deceive his band members (Jake didn't tell them about orphanage and Elwood didn't tell them about the "Battle of the Bands" part) If I had to guess, the main reason Elwood felt guilty about dragging the band around was that he didn't have a real tangible reason to...in the first movie they were doing it for the orphans, in BB2000 they were doing it because...? Although, I'll admit Jake was less concerned with the band's opinion than Elwood. (Elwood: The boys seem a little upset.; Jake: They'll get over it.) But I think that comes from more or less that Jake is more confident than Elwood...which goes back to Jake being more of a leader type.

[mad-wolfie]

WatchBreaker said:

I don't know, and I don't really understand your rhetorical question. Can you clarify or come up with a different one, or at least tell me what my answer should be?

OK, perhaps i was a bit vague with my reply.. what i meant by it is that in 1980, Jake & Elwood were pretty much in their prime, they were supple enough to leap around without the risk of doing their back in or needing a hip replacement. Remember the Blues Brothers movie is 30 years old now & i'm pretty sure in 30 years time you'll not want to leap around or perhaps even be able to plus of course by the "dad at a wedding" analogy let's face it if in 1980 my dad or even your dad (without knowing him or you it's hard to make a comparison but the principle is the same) was dancing at a wedding he'd probably be regarded as quite the cool character, if he tried to do the same now he's probably going to end up making himself look foolish & he wouldn't be as supple so would look clumsy in comparison - even though at heart he may feel like a party animal we all have to come to a point where we realise we are going to end up looking ridiculous & embarrass ourselves if we try to do what we did 30 years ago.

SO on that basis i think it's safe to say that although Dan can still put on a good show, he's not going to have the same flair he had in 1980 & even less now than he had in 1998, by trying to emulate what they did in 1980 would just have the opposite appeal. If Elwood did that stooped foot stomping he did in the Palace Hotel Ballroom scene today now that he's 30 years older & has a few added pounds around his frame, he'd probably put his back out & it would leave the audience thinking "what the hell is he doing" when they watch him trying!

WatchBreaker said:

I agree that the music is probably the most important part but would not that, therefore, the dancing doesn't/shouldn't matter. Maybe it's just me, but when you have the Blues Brothers' amazing style of singing and dancing and then just remove the dancing part, I feel like there's a hole. Also, I was generally speaking about the dancing of the Blues Brothers specifically. I don't know...maybe it was there and I didn't see it. It just seemed like a lot of there dancing was simple and synchronized, where as the old format had Jake as the main singer with Elwood as a secondary singer while doing a lot of the entertaining dancing.

See above, i think that covers this statement as well. I agree, the dance routines weren't there & the elaborate leaps & bounds had gone & been turned more into foot shuffling, but again, this is probably because the actors in BB2k were all in their 40's & 50's, not in their 20's & 30's. As you said before the strip club scene was probably a bad move - i know my other-half hated it & said it was so unlike the Blues Brothers but i suppose reading between the lines it did take your eyes away from the dancing routines of the band & transfered it to another medium to fill that hole.

Plus with no Jake around, Elwood had to take the lead a bit more when it came to the singing - he was the only original one left out of the 2, yet when you listen to the soundtrack album from the 1st film it's very evident that Jake seemed to do most of the singing, even so when you listen to the other BB albums & see the stage shows (although i've not seen it, i've seen enough video's on YouTube to make a conclusion) Elwood does a lot more singing & takes the lead on at least 40% of the songs when he's not playing the harp where in the 1st movie he didn't take the lead on any & he only really sang in Sweet Home Chicago - where he only had a few lines & during Rawhide where he took lead vocal but it was Jake who stole some of the spotlight on that song with his attitude, we didn't get songs like Riot in Cell Block Number 9 on the film soundtrack which is a shame because Elwood was sort of left in the background & didn't show his full potential until the sequel (which in my opinion was really only a glorified remake) came along.

WatchBreaker said:

Jake was older? I know John was older but I could've sworn I've heard Elwood say "my little brother Jake"... (Not in the movie...in live gigs and stuff)

OK i'll concede on that one, i really meant to say "bigger brother" as in the more dominating force, not so much in terms of age or physical appearance. but to be fair i think they each had their share of being the "elder" brother & Elwood may of said "my little brother" but Jake may of said it as well, so let's not read to much into that one.

WatchBreaker said:

Anywho, as I said, I would have waited until Zee could be in the movie and have him be more of a driving force in the plot. Jake and Elwood complemented eachother, and I think Zee could have filled Jake's role well, and we would actually have a reason to be there...being Jake/John's brother. Mack was a bartender with average singing skills, Buster was some kid, and Cab would have made a bit of sense but was late to the party.

true but that was more of a contract reason than anything else, likewise we could say the same of Paul Shaffer if he'd been allowed to reprise his proper role of being the bands keyboard player.

At the same time, he could of drafted in Peter Aykroyd to play another brother as in the true brother of Elwood & taken the film to a new direction to find his family instead of trying to recruit Curtis, but we could be here until domesday coming up with plotlines & potential outcomes for every scenario, so let's leave it there.

Plus as i said before on the forum, i personally think Buster was a good inclusion because it opened up the Blues Brothers to a younger audience proving that to listen to old fashioned music your mum & dad listened to was still OK & to dress in a suit was still cool among the youngsters, otherwise the film i feel would of been limited to the fans & the people of the same generation thus ignoring the teenagers & not opening up a new audience & of course a family orientated theme opened up that whole family viewing audience where the original was a little more adult orientated. if there is a sequel that is another thing the production team will have to consider, how to keep the fans happy, plus still leave the door open for 21st century born Blues Brothers fans to keep the whole cult following alive.

WatchBreaker said:

Elwood did have his moments. But it still seems Jake drove most of the plot. He was the one really pushing to get the band together....

agree, however i think i can wrap the remainder of the points you made in one statement.. as i said think of BB2k as a remake, not a sequel, but if you do think of it as a sequel, remember the only person who could fill Jake's shoes to become the leader would be Elwood - i know we can all speculate on "Brother Zee" but as far the films go, Brother Zee doesn't exist & if he does, Elwood doesn't know about him in the 2 films.


to finish, i'll go over 2 points you brought up, which i think can be summarised with the same answer.

WatchBreaker said:

His plan wasn't any more "thought-out" IMO, unless you have an example (I haven't seen this movie as many times as BB1980.) He was still willing to deceive his band members

&

WatchBreaker said:

..in the first movie they were doing it for the orphans, in BB2000 they were doing it because...? Although, I'll admit Jake was less concerned with the band's opinion than Elwood. (Elwood: The boys seem a little upset.; Jake: They'll get over it.) But I think that comes from more or less that Jake is more confident than Elwood...which goes back to Jake being more of a leader type.

if you remember, Elwood's plan was more or less discovering he had a purpose done.. he said in the Penguin's office he needed direction "i've got nothing for Christ's sake" so made it his goal to find his family & pick up where he left off in the 1st film by doing what he knew.. the band, however he was offered the job in Willie's club - at this point he wasn't thinking of putting the band back together. He wanted to go on the straight & narrow - again evident with his phone call to the Dunn & Cropper radio show.

What lead me to the "concern" & "responsibility" for his band members statement & partly of the thinking out his plans, was when the club got destroyed Elwood wanted to put things right "Willie needs a job, you (Mack) need a job, I (Elwood)i need a job." which lead to the forming of the band which was 1st mentioned in Cab's office where he said he would put the band back together IF Cab joined him as his brother.

I think if it was Jake on the lead when the club was destroyed he'd of just said "yeah, so what?" & come up with a plan to get revenge on the Russians & how to make his next money-making scheme by lying & cheating his way into getting the band to perform in the process, where Elwood wanted to put things right for Willie & the others by not thinking of himself.

plus thinking of it further, (this goes back to the seat of the pants statement i made) Elwood it seems is the more educated of the 2 brothers.. evident in the 1st film when he was describing the stuff he was using in the spray cans in detail (OK when we see the uncut film we know he works in a factory that makes spraycans & that is where he lifts them from - again planning on his part) & of course his whole take on the Russians was very thought out in his articulate summary in Willie's bar.

[nacho108]

problems:
who pursue them?
as the brother enters zee?
the sacred hearts band?
mack, cab, buster?
the bluesmobile? (new or the same)
the songs?

[Dean Heuke]

nacho108 said:

problems:
who pursue them? The F.B.I.
as the brother enters zee? Jim Belushi, he finds Elwood, SOMEHOW :D
the sacred hearts band? Yes! and the BBB, they can play as big band
mack, cab, buster? Mack(he retired but, he should come back for the movie), Cab maybe(as a cameo), NO BUSTER
the bluesmobile? (new or the same) whats about a big old yellow school bus(enough space for the big band)
the songs?maybe covering new songs which are in the mainstream charts, or simply old blues songs, which are speed up

does that makes sense? :D