| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| damalc |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 19:15:12
i saw this discussion on another message board and i thought i'd put it before the most knowledgeable panel of film buffs i know.
which of those actors benefited most from their part in "Pulp Fiction?" i say Travolta, though it seems Jackson has been playing Jules Winnfield in almost every movie he's been in since.
speaking of Jules, i've heard a theory (perhaps here in the fourum) that Rufus, the piano player in KBv2 is actually Jules wandering the Earth and getting in adventures like Caine on "Kung Fu." |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/20/2008 : 03:20:51
I agree that Willis did much more with a more difficult role. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 22:03:47
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Don't you think Willis benefited because his character was a little unusual for him at the time? As in, he showed he could act in more than one range?
I think we all agree that all of them benefited from appearing in that movie, the question is who benefited the most. Personally, I think Willis had already established his range as an actor. He did star in "Moonlighting," after all.
Mmm. Pretty much a one tone characther too. Makes jokes, chases after the girl.
When I saw the film, it was Bruce Willis that struck me the most as actually 'acting' (Ving Rhames too) - thoughtful, using violence only as necessary (whaa?) and vulnerable - because of the girlfriend, because his father's watch meant so much to him etc etc The point being: he was believable in playing this role. Up to this point he had done comedy (on the back of Moonlighting) and action roles with that 'cheeky chappy' angle to it.
Travolta dis a character turn, as did Jackson. They are 'coool, man' sort of roles. They have become cult characters that people quote.
Yes, this role revived Travolta's career - but not because people remembered he could act. Jackson was already on an ascending career path, and this raised his profile. But as someone else pointed out he hasn't stretched himself that much - and neither has Travolta.
Since this film Willis has had a variety of unusual roles that he has carried off more often than not - even if the films themselves were dreadful. I think this is quite impressive for a man who appears to have only 3 facial expressions! |
| Koli |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 20:55:38
If I find the time and energy tomorrow I'll take a look at the fees each was paid per film before and after PF. That'll give us an idea of how producers regarded them and therefore how they were perceived by Hollywood. (You may feel that much depends on factors such as how good his agent is, whether the film is expected to gross a fortune, whether they had to fight hard to get him into a movie, but all that aside it ought to provide an idea of how their 'bankability' changed.) |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 13:43:33
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
And you honestly believe that would have been a bigger setback for his career than Travolta would have experienced? Is it possible you just really like that movie with him in it?
A disctinct possibility. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 05:38:05
I'll try to recreate this, since my browser locked up as I was saving my response the first time.
I still think that Willis' role in 12 Monkeys wasn't greatly influenced by his PF role. He had already done In Country, and nominated for a Golden Globe for his efforts, after the first Die Hard. That role was as far removed from John McClane's shoot 'em up hero as anything he's done, and he was great in it.
Pulp Fiction was first released in the US on 14 October 1994 (although Tarantino pimped it at Cannes earlier in the year). Meanwhile, 12 Monkeys began shooting on 8 February 1995, before PF had worldwide release. Considering rehearsal time, talks to negotiate roles, etc., I have to think 12 Monkeys was well underway by the time Pulp Fiction reached the status that it did.
As much as Willis had some stinkers in the past, his post-PF career didn't actually consist of real bombs, while John Travolta still is trying to live down Battlefield Earth. Be it the fault of bad judgment or something else, Travolta's career revived, but whether it reached stellar heights is a matter of interpretation. I'd be interested in seeing box office statistics for them both post-PF.
Edit:
So I went and looked at box office grosses. Post-PF, Willis' films (not counting cameo roles) grossed $1,881,397,366, Travolta's films grossed $1,388,229,848 and Jackson's grossed $2,166,361,144. So we see who was the biggest box office winner. Of course, none of that addresses quality. (Note: Jackson's doesn't contain grosses for the first two Star Wars prequels.) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 20:57:58
And you honestly believe that would have been a bigger setback for his career than Travolta would have experienced? Is it possible you just really like that movie with him in it? |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 16:59:05
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I'd go for Willis on this one as he has made the best movie amongst them since...12 Monkeys.
I don't understand how that's even relevant.
Ok if he hadn't made PF there is a chance the butterfly effect would have caused him to miss playing arguably his best role ever.
That was where i was coming from.
Sorry, Wasn't clear enough the first time!! |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 16:39:32
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I'd go for Willis on this one as he has made the best movie amongst them since...12 Monkeys.
I don't understand how that's even relevant. |
| turrell |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 15:14:31
I this Sixth Sense was best post PF Movie among them, and that Sam Jackson has had the best career since then, but Travolta needed this movie. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 13:53:20
I'd go for Willis on this one as he has made the best movie amongst them since...12 Monkeys. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 12:51:41
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Don't you think Willis benefited because his character was a little unusual for him at the time? As in, he showed he could act in more than one range?
I think we all agree that all of them benefited from appearing in that movie, the question is who benefited the most. Personally, I think Willis had already established his range as an actor. He did star in "Moonlighting," after all. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 03/14/2008 : 05:42:28
Willis may have shown a bit more range and willingness to get off the hero bus, but Travolta's career was in the dumpster until Quentin Tarantino's Vinnie Barbarino fetish surfaced to resurrect him. It's just kind of sad that while Johnny Boy's film career revived, in my view, he's never really come close to Vincent since. As for Samuel L. Jackson, his career just keeps rolling, which will happen if one is willing to do a Michael (does this man ever turn down a role?) Caine. For every Jungle Fever, Pulp Fiction, A Time to Kill, or The Caveman's Valentine, there are two Snakes on a Plane, Loaded Weapon, Amos & Andrew or Unbreakables. Interesting though, that he's worked so much with Willis. Willis has had a fairly solid career, which really predated Pulp Fiction. As someone else said, the Die Hard franchise was well underway. I'm not up on the logistics of it, but Twelve Monkeys surely had to be underway by the time Pulp Fiction made its hit (although I know the release dates were a year apart). And he had a steady stream of high profile films between PF and The Sixth Sense.
The 5 films each had pre- and post-Fiction (credited roles) are interesting.
Pre-PF, Willis had Hudson Hawk, Billy Bathgate, The Last Boy Scout, Death Becomes Her, and Striking Distance, (1991-1993), while post-PF, he had North, Color of Night, Nobody's Fool, Die Hard: With a Vengeance, and Twelve Monkeys (all in 1994 and 1995).
Pre-PF, Travolta had Look Who's Talking, Look Who's Talking Too, Eyes of an Angel, Shout, and Look Who's Talking Now, (1989-1993), while post-PF, he had White Man's Burdern, Get Shorty, Broken Arrow, Phenomenon and Michael (1995-1996).
Pre-PF, Jackson had Menace II Society, Jurassic Park, True Romance, Fresh, and Hail Caesar (1993-1994 and not counting TV films), while post-PF, he had The New Age, The Search for One-eye Jimmy, Losing Isaiah, Kiss of Death and Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1994-1995).
I'm sure what all this says, since both pre- and post-PF, they all had stinkers and winners, but it also says that Willis had 11 roles in 4 years, Jackson had 11 roles (plus TV) in 3 years, and Travolta took 7 years to have 11 roles (plus 1 TV).
Take it for what it's worth.
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 21:27:01
Don't you think Willis benefited because his character was a little unusual for him at the time? As in, he showed he could act in more than one range? |
| randall |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 21:21:31
Johnny T. Nobody thought he had a sense of humor before he abased himself in this movie. [He didn't do a particularly good job -- except in the auto scene where his gun went awry -- but he was there, and in a haircut which even Bardem might have preferred...]
Career resuscitated. |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 14:58:38
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
Travolta! I was waiting for "You Won't Believe Who's Talkin' This Time!"
Samuel L. Jackson I believe would have emerged eventually - if not in this role some role - he just needed a small but meaty part to bring out his inner Jules.
Willis - he benefited, but he did have Last Boy Scout just before Pulp (and despite his Who's Talkin' roles they were all off camera). He also had two Die Hards in teh Can and was waiting for subsequent Die Hardeners. He may not have gotten Sixth Sense, but his career was on a good path.
I agree with all of this. 
EM :) |
|
|
