Cool News
UPDATED INFO!! Set Report For SUM OF ALL FEARS!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
UPDATED INFO: To answer some of the concerns that are already arising in Talk Back, let me direct you to a good article that just ran on CHUD regarding the age of Jack Ryan and the rank of Jack Ryan and the continuity of the Jack Ryan films. They reference a CINESCAPE piece on the subject that included comments by Mace Neufeld and I'd also direct you to go look up the HOLLYWOOD CONFIDENTIAL column that Jeffrey Wells wrote at REEL.COM a couple of weeks back after reading the latest draft of the script. I'd look it up myself, but, um... well... I'm in the middle of something. Basically, Jack Ryan is an analyst again, not the Deputy Director of the CIA or the President. This is before everything that happens to him, and before he's even married. Yet, for some reason, it's set in the present day. Continuity? We don't need no stinkin' continuity!!
Got a great letter in tonight from "Norm," who spent the day on the set of the upcoming Phil Alden Robinson film SUM OF ALL FEARS. Now, Norm was an extra, and he was able to share his observations here. Extras are a great source of observations like this, and in the next few weeks, there's some big, big movies shooting scenes involving hundreds, even thousands of extras. If you're lucky enough to be on the sets of SPIDER-MAN for the Central Park Unity Day Festival or at the Lennox Lewis fight for OCEAN'S 11 or at any of Michael Mann's ALI recreations... LET US KNOW!! I'm dying to know what it's like to be there for some of these key moments in some of the big movies coming in the next few years. For now, here's "Norm" to tell you about his day with Jack Ryan...
Hey Moriarty !
I was an extra on the set of The Sum of All Fears today (March 13th), at
Mel's Cité du Cinéma in Montreal. I played a major burn victim in a
hospital bed, after a huge explosion that has also damaged the hospital
itself. The wrecked hospital set is quite impressive, and there was plenty
of extras in gruesome make-up (myself included).
The scene had a doctor played by Bridget Moynahan (the brunette in Coyote
Ugly, whom I think plays Ben Aflleck's love interest here) running through
victims and helping out. I'm not sure how this fits into the story.
It took 10 hours for something like 5 shots, but I didn't mind it too much.
First, you're paid to lie in a hospital bed, plus it's interesting to watch
the work of a director in action, in this case Phil Alden Robinson,
writer-director of Field Of Dreams and Sneakers. I liked seeing how he
exchanged ideas with his cast and crew and changed things on the spot.
One more thing, while I was leaving the set, I passed by a copy of the
screenplay on a table. I'm not quite sneaky enough to steal it, but I
glanced at the page it was opened on, and it said something about "Ukraine
not producing much but being all over online". i guess that confrims that
the "enemy" isn't Muslim but East European.
I might work on the film again next month when they shoot the Superbowl
scene at the Olympic Stadium ; they need 5000 extras.
I'll keep you posted!
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
And I can't wait to see the new Jack Ryan, Affleck rules...
-
Let me get this straight. They're going to make another movie based on a Tom Clancy novel and it will be directed by the guy who made Field of Dreams and starring Ben Affleck???? Gee, I hope it can measure up to the excellence of Sneakers or Reindeer Games.
-
I want to say that I think Ben Affleck is a rather good choice for the role as Jack Ryan. Obviously, not all his movies were terrific (such as Reindeer Game), but he also made movies like Chasing Amy, Bounce, and GWH which were all very watchable films. I think Affleck has potentials and he will bring some needed energy and perhaps even a sense of humor to the role. As for script changes, that has always happened when you have a film adapting from a novel. As long the movie delivers on a solid script, performance, and direction, I won't worry much about it. Patriot Games was a good film, but its sequel Clear & Present Danger was rather weak. Ford was getting restless in his role as Ryan and I think the casting of Affleck will help the franchise.
-
I will never be able to watch basic instinct again... thanks harry (no pun indended, trust me)
-
I'm not too worried about changing the enemy, as long as the thread of the story isn't altered too badly. And I'm not saying Ben Affleck's a bad actor. But He's the wrong choice for this I reckon. For a start he's too young!! How are people going to believe he's the Deputy Director of the CIA at his age? This takes place a couple of years after Clear and Present Danger (which I enjoyed more than Patriot Games) remember. How come by his age he's spent a few years as a Marine, written several books, and worked his way up through the ranks of the CIA? I don't buy it unless they're going to reduce his rank in the CIA, which then spoils continuity with the other Jack Ryan films, which lets face it are not bad films. Affleck just doesn't come across as the sort of guy who's got the smarts for heavy criminal intelligence investigations. Sorry, I'm just highly dubious of this choice.
-
You know this film is going to look cheap. No doubt canada sweetened the pot with tax back refunds for the producers, coupled with the low can dollar.
Bah!
Bomhemian Grove exposed! world leaders and corporate bigwigs worshiping an Owl God named Moloch, burning an effigy seen @ Alex Jones' infowars.com. -
Everytime a film is set in " New York" or " chicago" you can bet it was made in MOntreal, Toronto or Vancouver. X-Men didn't look cheap.
-
It's the guy himself. The Jack Ryan series should be about intelligent, believeable, intense, real-world spy stuff. That's what sets it apart from the other spy movie franchises. Affleck is being hired to attract the sort of teeny-bopper audiences that he brought to Armageddon, or that DiCaprio brought to Titanic. Baldwin and Ford, while both considered to be handsome men, were not the type of guy you'd see on the cover of your little sister's magazine, but Affleck IS. He'd be more suited to playing Cruise's sidekick in a M:I3 than to this. In short, his casting is the first sign that they're dumbing down the franchise (I hope I'm wrong). Don't get me wrong, he's made intelligent films before (Dogma, Good Will Hunting) but that's not why he's been cast and that's what worries me.
-
Well, apparently they are changing so far:1) the enemy 2)Jack's age 3)his job 4)his marital status 5) his life experiences. Great. Just great.
I guess he never was a Marine, or a stockbroker, or a teacher, or a FATHER. He's just some punk in the CIA. Oh yeah. This movie will be awesome. "pun" intended. -
Interesting. I am sure that Hollywood was pressured into this switch, due to our worsening relations with the Muslim world.
-
I still think this guy would get beat up by the average junior high schooler. How about a grown-up male to play Jack Ryan? Our red-blooded cinema deserves more than this!
-
the only good Clancy book to movie was The Hunt For Red October. all the rest were your lame hollywood average flicks which had little flair. like the type of films manufactured by an assembly line! look at the most recent one Clear & Present Danger, it just sucks! i have to agree with Clancy that Han Solo is just too old to play Jack Ryan! or should i call him mr. wrinkles?? just look at the dude, he's like a friggin grandpa! & are they really seriously thinking of choosing Ben Affleck to play Jack Ryan?? hahahaha...i like Affleck but you got to be kidding, he looks like he just graduated from college 2 years ago!!! Alec Baldwin was the best Jack Ryan & he proved it in The Hunt For Red October, the ONLY GOOD movie adaptation of Clancy's novels! the Sum Of All Fears is most likely to SUCK!
-
1) If Clancy hated "Clear and Present Danger" because he felt it took too many liberties with his book, aside from taking a boring and longwinded novel and making it into an enjoyable flick, what does he think about this?!?!? Hell, he didn't even like Alec as Ryan because he seemed too much like an action hero!
2) Why does everyone bag on "Reindeer Games?" The last plot twist was pushing it, but if Alfred Hitchcock had made this movie forty years ago everyone would be talking about how great it is and would be collecting it on DVD and writing articles about its mastery and deep in your heart of hearts you all know it. Hitch would've made it less violent, for sure, but gimme a break. Same goes for "Arlington Road."
3) I forget. -
Okay, so they're demoting and de-aging Jack Ryan. Alright. He's not married, has no kids. They're taking the plot, keeping it contemporary, but setting it back in Jack's history. Alright. But... wait, they're keeping James Cromwell as President? He was President in Clear & Present Danger. When Jack had two kids, one of which was, what, 12? Two terms = 8 years... so, what, did he serve non-consecutive terms?
It's a nitpick in a movie already turned upside-down, but it really bugged me when I saw that cast list. -
I've read most of the Clancy books...love them all. Enjoyed Red October, the movie, kind of liked the Ford pictures. But isn't it interesting from a philosophical point of view that you have these continuing adventures of a conservative-type main character in Jack Ryan (though he claims to be independent) written by an author who is clearly republican and Hollywood goes and casts three mega-liberals in the role...guys who have stuck by Bill Clinton through all of his shenanigans. It demeans and insults the integrity of the Ryan character.
-
you know.. I think it's actually okay that they're doing this... once you convinced yourself that this isn't anything like the book and never will be you just rather they do something new rather than use ben affleck to replace jack ryan and attempt to be mimic anything like the book. As far as I'm concerned i'm just going to consider that it's not a clancy movie just someone using the same title.
-
Make Ryan younger and unmarried, and it could all work out.
-
James Cromwell didn't play the President in Clear and Present Danger. Donald Moffat played the President in that movie.
-
The mention of the Ukrain in the screenplay does not mean that Muslim terrorists aren't the guilty party in the film. Because of a series of mishaps in the book, the military initially thinks the USSR is reponsable. Since that's dated, they may have changed the initial blame to a rougue remnent nation, such as the Ukrain.
In any case, if the dramatic climax of the story remains the same (which is the point of the title), the responsable party must NOT be a soveriegn nation, but instead a terrorist group. If done right, this could be the best.
As far as continuity, the films are already out of story-chronology. PATRIOT GAMES was supposed to take place a year before HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER and then CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER a couple of years later, then SUM OF ALL FEARS, in which Ryan should be the acting director of CIA. Oh well. Take it with the same continuity as the James Bond films. -
I'm the schuck who tried a campaign to 'BRING BACK BALDWIN' upon hearing that Harrison Ford wasn't reprising the Jack Ryan role. Obviously, we all know this came on deaf keyboards with Ben Affleck being assigned the task of bring Tom Clancy's 'The Sum Of All Fears' to life.
My initial reaction to Affleck's signing was like everyone else'; WHAT?????????. But as time went on and interviews and reports came in about what Mace Neufeld and Phil Alden Robinson were doing with this franchise, I felt a little at ease. I'm still not convinced that Affleck was the best choice but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, people raised a big stink when Roger Moore replaced Sean Connery but after letting him grow into the roll, they easily accepted him.
I think it would be interesting to see where they will go with this decision, see how they present Jack Ryan as a young man, his rise into the ranks of the C.I.A, his relationship with, well his soon-to-be wife, his growth, and that of Ben Affleck as well.
Right now, we, the loyal Tom Clancy fans, feel a little cheated but I do believe, in time, we can accept Affleck as Ryan because the filmmakers are letting him and us grow with the character, to get to know him in a way that we, otherwise, never could have with the previous actors who've played him. We met an established Jack Ryan, now we get to see the stripped down Jack Ryan, from the begining, before he was the hero of Buckingham Palace and the savior of the free world.
What if it stinks?
John Patrick -
...you're right, wasn't Cromwell. I wonder why I thought it was? Most likely cuz they showed the trailer for Babe when I saw Clear & Present Danger, and then saw Babe a year later on the same screen, and the they vaguely look alike. Anyhow, sorry for the misidentification, and thanks for clearing it up. Now we only have to worry about the rest of the continuity errors :)
-
That was the best, and none of them have compared since to me. Baldwin's portrayal of Ryan was the most nuanced, and it wasn't all about him...it was about a defector and a battle of wits. The Ford version of these films fall under "star vehicle" categories, and they've bored me to tears. I expect this to do the same. Also, I don't know if I can buy Affleck as an analyst, and I like the guy okay.
-
I read awhile back from www.darkhorizon.com that Clancy actually had a meal with Affleck, where he get to talk to the actor who will be the next Jack Ryan. Clancy commented that he thought Affleck is quite talented and he's satisfied that he'll be Jack Ryan. Of course, Clancy is known as a "sell out" so his remarks may not mean much to Clancy fans, but he had complained about Ford's age (which I agree) and Affleck is actually not that far from Ryan's actual age in the book (I think it's 35). I read that Ryan will be a CIA analyst, not CIA director, so that can explain his youthfulness (he's also not married). When Val Kilmur took over from Michael Keaton in Batman Forever, no one said that he's younger than Keaton (which he is). I don't have a problem with Affleck's age, nor his performance. I just hope the script will be smart and that Paramount take good care in making this film.
-
I think the reason nobody commented on the age difference was partly because it's Batman, and his age isn't really established by anything as Ryan's is (by virtue of job position, family, etc), so a few (dozen) years doesn't matter so much. Plus, I think Schumacher distracted everyone with nipples on the Batsuit and tons of butt & crotch shots. People were stunned speechless by stuff like that, so by the time everyone regained speech and began asking "What the hell was that?", they'd forgotten that Val was younger. Plus they were busy wondering how the Joker came back from the dead and was split into two people, one looking like the movie Joker, calling himself "Two-Face" and one acting like the comic-book Joker, calling himself "the Riddler".
I hear Jonathan Lipnicki will be playing Batman in Schumacher's "Dark Knight Returns" movie next year. Wonder if people will notice the age thing? -
Is it possible for a writer to be a sellout of he was a hack in the first place?
-
No not all films are "filmed" in canada only the cheap one's. Whatever gave you such an absurd idea as that big tuna?
Oh and It's an insult because canada still sucks the tit of the UK, they still use the queen for their monarch. When you're supposed to be independent you don't use foreign symbols and representation.
From:BigTuna
Subject: Every film is made in Canada
Comment: Everytime a film is set in " New York" or " chicago" you can bet it was made in MOntreal, Toronto or Vancouver. X-Men didn't look cheap.
-
Perhaps. It was back in those far-off days of high school. I know for a fact that I saw both films on the same screen... I'd heard of Babe long before it came out. I'm pretty sure it was there, since I saw it originally at a film that wasn't a family film, but I suppose it coulda been at Richie Rich a few months later.
-
My point was that it's stupid to even point out it's made in Canada because ever notice most times when this site has a set report most times its a set in Canada. And how would a film look " cheap" because it's not made in the U.S? If anything with the 40% they are saving on the film they can spend more on f/x. There are doxens of films you've watched that were filmed in canada and you had no idea and no one goes to the shitty UK to film anything.
-
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that Afflecks pulls it off beautifly, that the production is top notch, that the director did an awesome job. But what about the script? How does one transfer the book written in 1990 (give or take a year) to a script happening in present time?
From what i hear, there is no mentioning of any stuff in Israel. That's just plain wrong, one of the coolest idea in the book was that it was an Israeli weapon that was used for the nuclear bomb. (perhaps the producer being Mace NEUFELD has something to do with it...) And then, how do they intend to solve the ending? Are we to believe that there's been a sudden shift in Russia's policy so that they are so trigger happy that they're ready to launch all their nukes and start a ww3??? Also, even more importantnly, how do they mean to portray the tank battle sequence? With today's political situation in the world i do not see how that is possible...which is such a shame as the tank battle was the best action scene in the whole book. -
As a HUGE fan of the Jack Ryan films I can only wring my hands in dispair over the changes being made to the time line in this film. What are they going to do if they want to make Debt of Honour?? Pretend this film never happened? All of the books tie into each other (well except Red Storm Rising but thats not a Jack Ryan book) and to play with the continuity is wrong! I have a very bad feeling about this. Any idea whether John Clark and Chavez are in the movie?
-
So many people complain about the movies coming out of Hollywood - too predictable, unoriginal, yada, yada.
Yet when someone takes on a role in a franchise picture no less, they get slammed for deviating from the original. It's almost like people want Hollywood to create the same movie over and over.
None of the Jack Ryan movies followed their respective books verbatim. That's simply not possible considering the enormous amount of detail Clancy had in his books and the length of a film.
And they really didn't have continuity: a young Alec Baldwin in one, an old Harrison Ford in the next. It's hilarious that people think this movie is already crappy when it has just begun principle shooting.
Affleck is the absolute best choice for a new Jack Ryan picture. Can you think of anyone else capable of taking on this role and being taken seriously? He's a smart guy, don't sell him short. Affleck will do a much better job than the dour, stoic Ford.
If you really want to bash the movie before it even gets off the ground, go track down the early script that's floating around and then come back and have an intelligent comment to offer.
-
Here's a link to Jeffrey Wells' Reel.com column talking about Affleck in "Sum of All Fears"
http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=movienews/confidential&pageid=16781 -
CaPD the movie was loosely based on CaPD the book. But probably because of what they did to CaPD to make it a movie, they have to butcher Sum of All Fears also.
In CaPD, the US sends troops, covertly, to Columbia to take out drug dealers. Well, it goes bad, and the government leaves the troops to die. Ryan finds this out and get some people to help him rescue the troops. In the course of the rescue, a helicopter gunner gets killed. Ryan, being pretty rich, sets up a fund for the guys kids (he had like 6 or something). And he talks occasionally with the guy's widow. However, since the entire operation was "black" he can't tell anyone, even his wife.
What does this have to do with SoaF?
Here's what SoaF is really supposed to be about (you'll find the connection later). Back in the 60's or 70's there was a short war in the mideast. An Israeli jet is sent out to nuke some enemy position. On the way it has a failure or is shot down (it's been a while since I read this book). Well, the nuke gets buried in the sand. Move ahead to present day, the children of those enemies (explicitly in the book as Arabs) find the unexploded nuke. In short, over the course of the book, they rebuild it into a functioning weapon. They decide to target the Super Bowl, being played in Denver (between the Vikings and Chargers no less). It also happens that the SecDef is the/an owner of the Vikings.
In the meantime, the new president doesn't like Ryan. Ryan is thought to be a "cold war dinosaur" or something like that. So the president's staff sets out to find a way to get Ryan to leave. So they find his monetary contributions to that dead guy's family and watch him visit her. Ryan is now the DCI because Adm. Greer died.
So it's late January and the Super Bowl is on. The Pres is away at Camp David, the SecDef is in Denver to watch his team, and Ryan is back in a snowed in DC. Then the bomb goes off.
The Pres is made out to be a non-military type who can't handle crises. Add to that the fact that his Chief of Staff (who started the witch-hunt on Ryan) goes to pieces, and the Pres is going nuts about what to do. His main military adviser is vapor and he only has Ryan to rely on. The Pres wants to nuke Iran (who is setup or directly responsible, again I forget). In the end Ryan talks him out of it and instead gets a precision bomb dropped on the Ayatollah's (spelling?) house.
In the book, if i remember right, the bomb fizzles and does a good number on the stadium, but doesn't flatten it. BTW, it's a new hard roofed dome in the book, not old Mile High.
So, if there is no nuke, no Cathy Ryan, no young unexperienced Pres, and a young single Jack Ryan, this won't be SoaF the movie, but again, a movie looooosely based on that book. -
How can anybody possibly take smart arse Ben Affleck as Jack Ryan. Talk about miscasting. This will be a movie to give a severe body swerve to.
-
It amazes me how much we can criticize a movie before even seeing it or reading the screenplay or really knowing anything at all about it. When one of us writes (something like) "from what I've heard there's no mention of the Israeli bomb", and then raps the film for not having the Israeli bomb, then we're not being fair. I saw the first page of the script. It starts with the Israeli bomb during the 1973 war.
-
I don't think continuity should be a major concern about 'Sum' from Clancy fans. The last 3 Clancy movies aren't in chronological order at all, and Baldwin & Ford's age have a huge gap and no one can say that Ford was a logical choice to succeed Baldwin. Most CIA operatives are in the 30s, and Ford was simply too old appearance-wise to pull it off. Affleck, on the other hand, won't be hard to look like someone slightly older than his actual age. Affleck had discussed with Baldwin on set of Pearl Harbor on the role of Jack Ryan, so I think he had gotten some good advice. I think we should reserve our judgement until we have more information about 'Sum'.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts