Originally, Kane & Lynch was to be helmed by Italian Job director F.Gary Gray. Then Gray left, and Simon Crane came onboard. He was then replaced by Patrick Alessandrin (District 13: Ultimatum), with a seemingly-firm October start date. Now, Alessandrin has also left.
The Los Angeles Times reports that French filmmaker Patrick Alessandrin (District 13: Ultimatum) is no longer attached to direct the picture, with a spokesperson for Nu Image/Millennium telling the paper “‘the director has not been chosen’ and that a ‘start date is TBD.'”
The Times says it’s likely Kane & Lynch won’t start production now until first quarter 2011 at the earliest. Bruce Willis and Jamie Foxx apparently remain attached to play the title roles.
The paper says previous directing contenders F. Gary Gray (who made Law Abiding Citizen with Foxx), Antoine Fuqua (Willis’ Tears of the Sun) and Wayne Kramer (Running Scared) are all “back in the mix” as possible replacements for Alessandrin.
Damn. This ain’t looking good. Although it sometimes happens in Hollywood, this almost never translates into delivering a great movie in the end. So, this ain’t looking good. Are the directors having problems with the studio’s ideas or are they having problems with Willis or Foxx? Something ain’t right. Is it the script? We’ll have to wait a see.
Kane & Lynch is the story of two death-row inmates who end up in a partnership together after they are kidnapped by The Seven. The Seven is a highly organized terrorist group that recruit Kane and Lynch for a variety of missions around the globe.
What do you think might be going wrong? Studio? Script? Actors?
Hopefully this gets Uwe Boll!!!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s a video game film it must suck.
While my hopes are not high for the project, I got a little bone to pick with you, Francisco. Here it is:
“Although it sometimes happens in Hollywood, this almost never translates into delivering a great movie in the end.”
What on earth are talking about? Your statement is meaningless. “Almost never” makes it sound like a rarity, when it is anything but. It does not mean a script is bad. It does not mean a script is good. It only means a project is taking too long to get off the ground and the director (s) choose other projects and come back to it at a later time, or they walk away. That does not mean the next person in line will do a better job or a worse one. It’s an extreme hypothetical situation.
You might as well say The Hobbit will never recover, even though we know the general problem. Is it the script, or the problems of a studio? Yet a director walked off that project.
How did 1988’s “Rainman” turn out? Didn’t Barry Levinson turn the film down at first, came back after ‘Good Morning Vietnam’ after other directors passed on the future Oscar winning film?
Spider-Man made money. A lot of people loved Watchmen.
While those are just a few examples, if I continued, you’d have to check a watch. We would be here all day.
In essense, it is part of the problems of development. Delays throughout the years does not equal to a bad result. It isn’t a rarity. It happens more often than you imply.