In light of the recent news that Chris Tucker is getting a $25 million paycheck to appear in Rush Hour 3 (about $10 million more than Jackie Chan), I thought I would put this simple question to you, the Movie Blog readers to get your impressions of the situation.
THe question is simple. Who (in your opinion) is the main reason for the success of the Rush Hour franchise? If you plan on seeing Rush Hour 3 when it’s done… who are you MOST going to see?
Comment with Facebook
Collectively I believe both actors contributed to the success of Rush hour. Both Tucker and Chan has their role to play and together it made the flick worth watching. Chan is known for his superior stunt abilities and Tucker is known for his funny/hilarious abilities i.e. money talks, friday etc. So both obviously from different background incorporating it in Rush hour makes it great. For what they are being compensated for thats beyond anyone of us. I’f im a so so actor and someone is going to pay me $25 million I will not argue and I couldnt careless what moviegoers think…cut my check…enjoy the movie…if its a flop…i made off with money i could retire on…and live off residuals and circuit sales…
Like recenctly posted, There is no better person in the movie. Chan and Tucker work great together. Without Tucker, Chan this may as well be a all action movie. Without Chan this would be a action comedy without most action. Tucker and Chan work great together and makes Rush Hour what it is
Most american teenager girls I know, told me, Tucker is their favorite comic actor.
goomack said it all, so there’s not much to add. Tucker brings the funny to what would have been another tired Jackie Chan stunt movie.
The relationship between Jackie’s character and Tucker’s character is what made Rush Hour what it is. Out of the two, Jackie brings more to the movie for me, but it wouldn’t be Rush Hour without both of them. You might as well change the name and start another movie franchise.
I agree with goomack14 …
Rush Hour is not about “Good Acting” so replacing Tucker with a straight black actor would be pointless. How much a star gets paid is not about “Good acting”, it‚Äôs about how much of a draw the studio believes they will be for a project.
Rock is MUCH funnier than Tucker, but he would not work in this role. Tucker has never been put forward as good actor he is in films for comedy relief and mostly he does that well. Although I liked him in a slightly straighter roll when he was in Dead Presidents (Though the character was still funny).
The idea that Chan movies would make this kind of money with just Chan is just not true.
Neither of them are WORTH the wages they are getting, NO actor even skilled actors are WORTH millions, its just some of the lucky ones manage to earn it, good luck to them.
where’s the choice for “idiot kids who can’t find anything else to do on a saturday night”?
It really sucks that they didnt just swap Tucker for Rock and move on with the film just to shove it in Chris Tuckers face.
There’s a reason why we’re seeing Rush Hour sequels and not Money Talks sequels. My vote is for Chan.
I just feel that you can’t replace Tucker in this roll…or really any roll he is in. I just feel he is unique…his delivery, voice, and his physical comedy…there are a shit load of great black actors and/or comedians…there is just something about Tucker and the fact that he established this roll… Look at the “Friday” movies, argue if you will their quality and also if you enjoyed them or not, but look at the first one with tucker…then sequals with out Tucker not NEARLY as good. All his other movies were one and done, but if they made a Sixth Element would Ruby Rhod be played by anyone better and make it that entertaining. Now I make the same arguement for Rush Hour and if your answer is yes again, then I ask who could do it and make it that successful and not make it a COMPLETELY different movie.
OH and for the record…I am not on Tuckers dick so much as to think he deserve the 25 mil, but good for him for sticking to his guns and who knows he might have seriously screwed himself into this being his last job…
Considering the additional distribution rights Jackie Chan is supposed to be receiving for Rush Hour 3, I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up making over twice as much money as Tucker on this project.
I like the first movie because of Jackie Chan. Chis Tucker was funny in it, but Chan is the main reason it’s any good. I disagree when you say that Chris Tucker is bad in every other movie. I really liked him in Jackie Brown and the Fifth Element. Anyway, Rush Hour 3 is not a movie that I think should be made (didn’t think the second one should have been, either). I may rent it when it comes out on DVD.
I completely agree with John. I’m not of the campt that he’s bad in the movie (thought he’s not the reason I saw it or the reason I’d see any others) but i also don’t think he’s worth that much money.
Hey there Goomack,
I can’t disagree with you more about the first Shanghi Noon flick. It was remarkable.
Also, you seem to be equating Tucker with the role that he played (and played pretty poorly at that. Take out Tucker… and you still have the character.
And why, when suggesting alternatives to Tucker in the role, do you only suggest bad actors? There are good solid black actors out there you know who would fill the role Tucker played MUCH better.
Do I mind Tucker in Rush Hour? Not totally. But he is the supporting character at best… all his other films prove he has no drawing power or overall acting talent… and the fact that he’s getting $25 million for this film… and significantly more money than Chan is, is an insult to common movie fan intelligence (but then again… I think our collective intelligence stands a bit to be desired). :P
Cheers.
~John
You said it best goomack. You can’t really have one without the other. It’s about both characters and how they interact with each other. What would be the point of Rush Hour 3 if there is no relationship to develop on. Both Chan and Tucker are the reason for the Rush Hours success, but if I had to pick from the two to whom I perfer with would be Chan, hands down. Simply because I respect all the crazy stunts he has done.
John and the Majority,
If you take Tucker out of this roll all you get is a basic Jackie Chan movie. If you replace Tucker you get “Shanghai Noon”…SINCE Jackie has made a billion movies we don’t need another one…SINCE “Shanghai Noon” is OK at best and “Shanghai Knights” was a turd, you have to keep Tucker…who are you going to replace him with? Chris Rock? (can’t act) Ice Cube? Dr. Dre? From the last few complaint articles you’ve written it seems like you think that Tucker is a token character (not throwing the race card).
In truth it isn’t about Tucker or Chan the movies are about the relationship of the two characters. In the second movie when the characters are in the truck and they are fighting..which leads to the line “Bite that thing…bite it like a little monkey…” no one can replace either component…Rush Hour is Tucker and it is Chan.
The question might not be posed correctly. Who is the reason for the success of rush hour …. well, film geeks will say it’s jackie chan, thats why i see the Rush Hours. And i am positive that jackie is 95% of the reason that rush hour does very well in the international box office. But domestically, i think a good portion of the North Amercan Audience sees Chris Tucker as the draw.
I could be wrong. But i don’t think so.