Here it is folks, via IGN and a tip from reader Eloise.
Also, alas, in the IGN piece is this depressing bit:
Here’s the official plot synopsis for the film, which was directed by Ray’s Taylor Hackford:
“Parker (Jason Statham) is a professional thief who lives by a personal code of ethics: Don’t steal from people who can’t afford it and don’t hurt people who don’t deserve it. But on his latest heist, his crew double crosses him, steals his stash, and leaves him for dead.”
I’m not panicking about the “code of ethics” stuff, as I’ve been assured that that isn’t the case by people who would know. What does give cause for concern is that I initially thought it was just bad journalism (there’s been a lot of it concerning this film), but now I know that line is coming from the studio itself. I’m going to chalk it up to a PR person who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and keep my fingers crossed.
The poster just looks like a Jason Statham movie poster, not bad but nothing special. I do like the tagline, though.
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
I feel like that PR line is just a shortening of what Parker really lives by: Don’t steal from people who can’t afford it (because it’s not worth the time or effort) and don’t hurt people who don’t deserve it (because it’s impractical and dangerous to a clean job). It makes him sound noble, when really he’s just cold practicality with mean hands.
But there were a lot of other things in that article that worried me. The whole posing as a “rich texan,” and Jennifer Lopez being on the cast are both enough to concern me. And Parker hijacking someone else’s score doesn’t seem like him.
Just finished The Green Eagle Score this week, and before that Darwyn Cooke’s rendition of The Score.
I never thought some journalist came up with that language. Obviously the studio is afraid people won’t come to a Jason Statham film if he’s playing a bad guy. And Parker is a bad guy. Not evil, not malicious, but utterly indifferent to the moral codes of society. And honestly, when has Taylor Hackford ever had a protagonist like that? A lot of them PRETENDED not to care, but were softies when push came to shove. I bet the whole ‘code of ethics’ thing was in the original pitch to the studio, even if a PR guy actually wrote that blurb.
Parker does pose as a rich Texan in Flashfire, but he does not wear a cowboy hat–he’s not the TV/Movie cliche of a rich Texan. And it’s so hard for TV and movies to avoid using those cliches at every opportunity. You overplay that, and you destroy the character’s credibility. He’s not some chameleon grifter. He is a guy who likes to avoid being noticed, and you don’t accomplish that by wearing a huge white cowboy hat in a rich Florida community–as no rich Texan actually would in that environment.
In the novel he does plan to move in on somebody else’s score, but that’s because they stiffed him on his share of a bank robbery these guys did to fund a bigger score. Parker doesn’t think their plan will work, so he declines their offer to work with them on that–but he then goes on a crime spree to fund his revenge on them, so he can move in and take the loot himself. It’s atypical of him, which is the point of the book, but then why USE that book?
Obviously they have to play up Lopez being in the cast (she’s a much bigger star than Statham, though not as popular as she once was), but they really make it seem like there’s a love affair going on here, and in the book there is simply not. Leslie is attracted to Parker, but he’s cold with her–just a short-term associate, nothing more. And are they going to make it clear that Parker comes within a hair’s breadth of killing her? How would that play with the whole ‘code of ethics’ thing?
Honestly, if I knew nothing else but that it was an adaptation of Flashfire, I’d be worried, because that novel is a horrible introduction to Parker–nor was it WRITTEN as an introduction, even to new audiences. Westlake had already written eighteen Parker novels over a period of two decades, and he wanted to try some variations on the old themes. It’s not a bad book (there are no bad Parkers), but personally I’d put it at the very bottom of the pile. It’s one of the few I don’t own a copy of, and I’m in no hurry to plug that hole in my collection.
I also know it’s directed by Taylor Hackford, and I’ve seen Hackford’s work. That has me doubly wary, because he’s a sentimentalist. Richard Stark was a romantic. There’s a difference
ah, i haven’t gotten to flashfire yet. that’d do it. I’ll get there by the time the movie comes out, I’m sure.
I do think it’s interesting how quickly people in the IGN comments picked up on the Payback connection with the character.
Parenthetically, having typed that response this morning, I went shopping downtown this afternoon, and ran into the Strand bookstore to get out of the rain. I checked to see what Westlakes and Starks they had, of a matter of course–as usual, not nearly enough for my liking–but they had Flashfire and Firebreak, and I need both, having originally gotten them at the library, so I snapped ’em up. Now the only Parker I don’t own a copy of is Breakout.
Still need to pick up some cheap used copies of the UofC editions, to loan out to friends. No way am I loaning out my first edition paperbacks.
Anyway, Flashfire is a good book–if I hadn’t liked it, I wouldn’t have gone on to read all the others–but it really gives you a skewed picture of Parker if you’ve never read any of his other outings.
At last! Someone with real extpierse gives us the answer. Thanks!
Chris, Parker is not bad or good; he’s amoral–there’s a difference.
Agreed to an extent, but it’s still not a “code of ethics.”
The Texas oilman thing is faithful to the book, and I actually think J-Lo is great casting as the real estate agent who aspires to do whatever it takes to get her out of her shitty life.
We’ll see!
And hijacking someone else’s score is exactly what he does in “Flashfire” they’re adapting that story.
But do you think they’re going to adapt that story faithfully, is the question. I honestly don’t see how they can, under the circumstances. I think we’re going to see a whole lot of changes with regards how they set this thing up. And I think we’ll see a character who isn’t anywhere near the character in the books. If they wanted the real Parker, they wouldn’t pick Flashfire in the first place.
Well the producers says that they tried to do it the most faithfully possible while taking some liberties with the story, of course it won’t be just like the book, adaptations never or very rarely are, I don’t know maybe they screwed it up but I have some hope that they did at least a decent job.
Producers ALWAYS say this. And I don’t need it to be JUST like the book, but this is the very first Parker adaptation where he’s actually called Parker, and I honestly don’t think Westlake would have okayed that if he’d been alive. “You want to do Flashfire? With an option to do more? But Flashfire FIRST? Sure, what the hell, cut me a check–but call him Pinker or Potter or something like that. He won’t be Parker. Flashfire–Statham–Hackford–sheesh.”
;)
Parker is getting revenge on Melander and crew after they used his portion of the cash from a joint heist to fund an even bigger heist without his permission. So he goes after them and tries to heist their score.
If this is the basic storyline of the movie, which it seems by all indications to be, the filmmakers are indeed following the basic plot of Flashfire. Now whether they stick to the novel in all aspects and don’t create new elements is another thing entirely. In my experiences watching film adaptations of novels I like, they ALWAYS change/add/delete SOMETHING.
I should add, sometimes it’s even to the betterment of the film. Spielberg took out all that unneccessary Mafia and Mrs. Brody/Hooper affair baggage and streamlined the story into an ultra-effective thriller.
The film version of Watchmen’s ending was a heck of a lot mmore sensible than the comic’s ending.
And there are other examples. Just saying; not every change is for the worst.
As for Lopez this is more a genre she used do in the late 90s, pre-Jlo and pre shitty rom-com and she was pretty good at it like in Out of sight, Uturn or Blood and wine so I guess that’s why I don’t really have difficulties imagining her doing well here, hopefully she did a good job.
It’s kind of beside the point whether she does a good job, if the writing and the direction are off. She was good in Out of Sight (probably her best film, though she mainly made her mark in RomComs), but Elmore Leonard purists weren’t necessarily that happy with her. That movie really softens the ending of Leonard’s novel. Sentimentalizes it. That’s what Hollywood does with this type of character. Unless it’s the kind of noir where everybody gets killed, they tend to sand away the sharp edges.
well I liked the movie more that the book and that never happens to me, I don’t think she was the problem for the EL purists she just was nothing like the character physically since in the book she’s a tall blond bombshell but I think it worked better with someone like her and her chemistry with Clooney is one of the thing the critics loved the most about the film and there is a lot to love about it.
The movie is a lot more sweet and romantic than the book.
And that is precisely the problem Elmore Leonard purists had with it.
And I’m with them, but in any event, this movie won’t be half as good as Out of Sight.
Which is an OKAY movie. Nothing more. Good reviews, but it hasn’t held up well.
I really feel the opposite (about OOS).
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive learn anihnytg like this before. So nice to search out any person with some unique ideas on this subject. realy thanks for beginning this up. this website is one thing that is wanted on the web, someone with a bit of originality. useful job for bringing something new to the web!
Well, whatever this movie turns out to be, I’m glad they have finally put out the poster and trailer and the buzz has started anew on VWOP. I don’t normally look forward to the middle of winter, but right now, I can’t wait for January 25th to get here!
promos and Statham talk about the film (you’re not gonna like what he’s saying about the character lol).
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/10/02/jason-statham-jennifer-lopez-parker/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Thanks, Eloise. Well, I think for me that pretty much confirms what we all feared. This is a vehicle for Jason Stratham to do what he always does in all of his movies. He is an action-movie star moreso than an actor, even moreso than Mel Gibson. This is not going to be a character-driven piece, this is an excuse for Stratham and the studios to collect another paycheck. Why? Because they can, and people will apparently keep paying to see the same thing over and over again, so why mess with a money-maker? It’s just a shame the first film where they actually are able to use Parker’s name that it is this. Why couldn’t he have been Porter, Walker, or something else? This will only further taint any legitimate attempt at trying to do a faithful Parker adaptation in the future.
I think what happened is that somebody who had an ‘in’ with the Westlake estate executors managed to sweet-talk them into letting this be the first Parker movie where he’s named Parker. Westlake never had any problem with taking Hollywood’s money, but he was very picky about letting them use the Parker name, and he wouldn’t have agreed to let them use it for this film.
It’ll flop. Statham hasn’t had a hit in years, Lopez either. It’ll disappear from sight quickly, and people will forget about it.
Sooner the better.
Thanks, Eloise. You are quickly becoming my best tipster!
The trailer will be released online tomorrow, hopefully before work so I can gin up a quick post about it in the morning.
you’re welcome and great for the trailer, can’t wait to see it.
Hey, let’s look at the bright side; even if the movie sucks, a few perceptive viewers will discover the books from it. That’s a good thing, no?
I’ve heard a lot of folks bitching about Lopez being in the film. Really? Her involvement is that big a deal for you? She’s no Meryl Streep, but when she’s been given decent lines to utter, she does far better than some actresses whom I won’t name.;-) lol
And hey, as I’m sure Clue will agree, AT LEAST THE DAMN THING GOT MADE!;-) lol
It looks like the DiCaprio Travis McGee film is sinking quicker than the Titanic. Sniff.:-(
I do agree with you Dave! This movie is clearly not going to be as faithful to the character or novel as any of us wish it was. However, if, as you have said several times, this film is 70% faithful, it will be on par with or better than most modern film adaptations of a novel. Maybe we can’t expect much more than that these days. Whatever this movie turns out to be, it will not detract from the novels one iota. It will certainly bring a new group of readers to the series and it may, along with the continuing graphic novel adaptations by Darwyn Cooke, help to bring Parker more and more into the public eye. Our secret may be out before too much longer!
It’s increasingly obvious that it’ll hover around 50% faithful–at best. The more we learn, the worse it looks, and even the diehard defenders are wavering (and hedging). Honestly, it’s not hard to spot a bad movie from a distance. A true film buff learns to read the signs a hundred miles away.
And clearly this will be a flat-out bad movie–quite possibly MST3K bad, only there is no MST3K anymore to help us enjoy it. Do I need to translate that for the Brits here? Not sure how widely MST3K was distributed. I’m imagining Crow with a Cockney accent, somehow. Servo would be an old Etonian ‘bot, I’m sure. :)
It ain’t gonna be MST3k bad, now C’MON!
Is there a clause in Statham’s contract that says he absolutely cannot shave that five o’clock shadow?
I have this weird feeling of optimism that this will be faithful enough that I won’t roll my eyes at it. I saw the blurry YouTube footage of the EW snippet and saw enough story elements to see they kept the guy selling IDs in there. Seems like the Parker-in-a-preacher-outfit was a minuscule part in the book, trying to look like an upstanding member of the community to deposit a large amount of money into a bank. I’m figuring the woman he’s making out with in the shower is Claire and not Lopez’s character? I’ll wait and see.
At worse, at least there won’t be a voice over!
You know, a movie could be technically faithful, and still suck to high heaven–that won’t be this movie, but it happens, all the damn time. Wrong actors, wrong writers, wrong director–fidelity won’t help you if you play the notes without understanding the tune. Even when they’re staying faithful to the letter, they’ll miss the spirit, which is what really matters. Was “Point Blank” the most faithful Parker adaptation? No. Did Westlake think it was far and away the best movie ever made out of one of his books? Yep. He sure as hell would be rolling his eyes as this thing, if he’d lived to see it. But again, I think he’d have taken the money, insisted they not call Statham’s character Parker, and that would have been that.
In truth, there’s a lot of Flashfire that you might do well to cut out–and so far, I’m seeing a lot of evidence that they’re keeping a whole lot of the stuff they should have axed–it’s not like they’re going to use every last scene in the book, so why, in a movie that is reintroducing this character to the moviegoing public, and under his real name for the very first time, show him in BOTH a cowboy hat AND a clergyman’s collar? It’s one thing to WRITE that and quite another to SHOW it. It’s funny to imagine it, but to see it–ugh.
I’m glad so few people will see this, because it would be embarrassing as all hell to have to tell people I’m a fan of the book series this movie is ostensibly adapting. “Oh yeah, the Cowboy/Preacher/Thief with a code of ethics. Man, that was lame. Do you like any good books?”
Ah, thanks for bringing the Preacher bit into focus; so it WAS in the novel! You have a great memory, Patrick!
Your sentiments match mine. It’s probably going to be decent, but not spectacular. But I would love to be proven wrong and walk out of the theater saying Statham and Hackford nailed it!
Chris, are you aware of how popular Statham and J-Lo is? You do realize she’s on one of the most watched TV shows in the country and Statham is arguably the most successful action hero under 50?
I don’t understand when you say so few people will see this. Surely more will see it than Payback, no?
the movie was made for $25-30M so if the movie can make $40M in the US that would be good enough, and can see it doing better oversea, Statham and Lopez are more popular there.
oh and Payback made +$80M in the US which is good but it had a budget of $90M it was a big production, Parker is an independent film so ending up around $40-50M would be considered a success.
How is it an independent film? It’s a studio release. 25-30mil is mid-budget. Studios keep about half the box office proceeds, and with promotion and release expenses, total expenditure will be 35-40mil. So if it makes 50mil worldwide (which is doubtful right now), the studio is still well in the hole.
Filmdistrict picked it up to distribute it but it was made with at least 4 or 5 different Independent Production Companies who financed the film it’s a big budget for a small film but it’s still and independent film.
Seems like more of a studio/indie hybrid–which is another warning sign.
Hackford really is on his way out, to be doing something like this.
I’ve supported the casting of J-Lo from day one. I don’t have any great love for her, but there’s a certain sort of role she excels at and this is it. I’m actually more in favor of her than Statham. To me, having spent some time in the real estate biz, she screams Palm Beach real estate agent. I buy it completely and I love it.
I had forgotten about the preacher bit, too. It’s a portion of the part near the beginning when Parker, in one of the best parts of the book, is building the funds to get to Florida and hit Melander and crew.
Yes, Claire is in the film, so Parker will probably not have a liaison with J-Lo. I expect that they’ll amp up the sexual tension with no consummation, like in The Pelican Brief (a flick I thought was underrated).
I may as well throw this out in this thread: The U of C tie-in edition of Flashfire is happening, if you’d like a neat collector’s item. I think this is the first real American movie tie-in edition of a Parker novel. (There have been at least two British ones.) Of course you’ll see the cover just as soon as I get it.
U of C also has some other neat plans in the works. I’ll spill when it’s all locked down.
She can certainly play the role, Trent–the problem is that because she’s such a big name (though on her way down in a hurry, as being on a reality show proves), they’re going to have to rewrite the role substantially. You’ll notice her face is a lot bigger than Statham’s in that poster.
Whatever kind of movie this is, it’s not a Parker movie. And my only real beef with it is that they’re using the Parker name. Because as you know, I don’t expect ANY movie to ever get him right.
I don’t think that they’ll make the role bigger because it’s her (if it’s what you meant) from what i saw she was on set for 3 weeks while Statham worked on it at least 8 weeks.
It’s how they edit the film that really matters. You can shoot a whole lot of footage in three weeks, and a lot of scenes would be shot in a studio, not on location.
nah she shot for 3 weeks studio+location.
If you say so, though you said ‘from what I saw’, which seems inconclusive. Statham would be doing a lot more scenes involving action and stuntwork, which requires more time on-set. They could still edit the film to greatly expand the role of her character. And going by the poster, that may well be what they actually did. I just don’t see her being content with the part as originally written. Of course, Statham seems happy to play fast and loose with his character as well. Let’s just admit that neither of them gives a damn whether this is a faithful adaptation. They care about what the movie does for their sagging careers. Not much, would be my guess.
Awesoem, Trent! You’ve whetted my curiosity about U of C, man!:-)
And I hate to bring the conversation to this level, but I can think of a lot worse things to look at up on the screen than J-Lo, if you get my drift.;-)
I saw a production photo where Statham was wearing the priest’s collar, the cowboy hat, and sunglasses while playing a saxophone. I know there was a saxophone in the Green Eagle Score, but not one in Flashfire.
Speaking of movie tie-ins, IDW is releasing Darwyn Cooke’s adaptation of The Hunter in paperback, sporting the “NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE” tagline at the top. Here’s the cover;
http://www.amazon.com/Parker-The-Hunter-Richard-Stark/dp/1613773994/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349228534&sr=8-2&keywords=parker+the+hunter
saxophone? do you mean this picture: http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/10/01/parker-1.jpg
Doesn’t look like a saxophone.
It was probably a joke, Patrick. At the end of Crank: High Voltage, there’s footage of Statham grabbing an elderly lady from behind and dry-humping her, as a joke.
He’s a card, that Statham.;-) lol
Chris, you’ve dogged this film since the very start. I wonder if you go and see it and actually like it, if you’ll ask Trent to delete all the barbs?;-) lol
The Trailer has been released.
and while it has it’s flairs of the man – the Machine,
I’ve come to know as Parker – I’ve gotta say, I am
mildly disappointed. Everything in the Trailer looks
fairly on point, save for the guys thick ascent and the
dreaded J.Lo.
To be honest her participation in the flick makes me
want to wait it out til it’s on Netflix.
I was excited until the sub-par poster was released
and I saw her name (and eyes) on it.
Why hollywood, why can’t you get this right?
It’s gold in paperback form.
Hell a comic book artist got it.
I just saw the trailer: Dammit, Statham mouths that goddamn goofy “Code of ethics” nonsense right at the beginning. So I am led to believe there is gonna be voice-over narration by Parker in this–UGGH. Reminds me of that damn cheesy VO of Gibson’s.
Statham’s cheesy one-liners: Check.
Kung-Fu BS: Check.
All in all, after seeing the trailer, I see a positive and a negative. It ain’t gonna be “our” Parker.
That’s the negative. The positive is it may be an entertaining shoot-em up and a decent Heist flick unto itself.
I don’t think it will suck eggs like the Jim Brown film, and it’ll probably be better than Payback.
But Hollywood STILL doesn’t GET IT. Parker is AMORAL.
Here’s probably the first review from someone who has actually already seen the film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWESifQ6Ekk&feature=related
Some bad news: apparently Parker also wants to get revenge on Melander and crew because not only did they try to kill him and keep all the money, they killed someone unneccessarily in the first Heist, at a State Fair. Which apparently disturbs Parker’s sense of fair play. Like Parker has a sense of fair play.
And Nolte plays Parker’s girlfriend’s father. I’m assuming this is Claire’s father, we’re talking about. WTF???!!!
BLIMEY.
I know. Not a ray of hope shines anywhere in this. They took the worst possible novel to start with, and they couldn’t even stay slightly faithful to it. But this is what they do, and they’ve done it to far better books. When they say “We’re going to be faithful to the original”, what they mean is “You’ll be able to faintly discern the outlines of the plot if you squint really hard.”
But hey, at least “Slayground” won’t be the worst Parker movie of all time anymore. Somebody should be happy about that. ;)
Just watched the trailer. Ugh.
Chris, it pains me to say this, but I have to admit you are probably 100% correct about how NOT a Parker film this is gonna be.
I sincerely thought because of Les Alexander’s involvement, we’d get something good. Guess not.
And yes, I am glad to know that maybe the folks here will now consider Slayground the SECOND worst Parker film.;-) lol
Cheers.
An interesting treatment will be designer opinion. I reckon that you should make solon on this substance, it energy not be a taboo chemical but generally fill aren’t sufficiency to speak upon much subject areas. To your succeeding. Cheers such as your Khmer Karaoke Superstars » Somnangblogs.
Westlake mentioned the Khmer Karaoke Superstars in Comeback, but not Flashfire. Maybe in a later movie.