Wall Street sequel....

Quote from IcarusByNight:

Major: I was thinking the exact same thing. In my experience, some of these hedge fund guys are tragically insecure. I doubt if they ever had a fist fight in their entire lives or even broke a sweat doing anything that could be considered manly. They're mammas boys. Having known one on an intimate basis, the macho bravado is hysterical and not anyone someone should aspire to.
More...
Yeah, I think anytime any human feels the urge to dominate another is a sign of fear and uncertaintly. It's a form of losing control and not being able to keep above the most primitive level.

Actually I think it was a good movie. What I don't understand is the trippining on this Gekko guy. To me he represents about the worst aspects of human nature. My fear is that since this became the selling point of the movie, the 2nd one will be more of that, instead of showing more of the rotteness and underlying weakness behind it. Maybe that is why Stone won't direct it, cause the producer wanted a different movie than Stone was willing to make.

Ursa..
 
This sequel terrifies me. Why would they trample all over a classic with what appears to be straight-to-dvd quality sequel.

I can just see it now....Gecko is a hedge fund manager or the boss of a private equity firm...whatever is trendy these days. Michael Douglas should be smart enough to leave a classic movie, and a classic performance, alone. He won an oscar the fist time, how much more does he want?
 
Quote from The Greeks:

Michael Douglas should be smart enough to leave a classic movie, and a classic performance, alone. He won an oscar the fist time, how much more does he want?
More...

Answer--Cold hard cash.

Probably about $15,000,000.

Then again, Gekko is a legendary character. Douglas might get $20,000,000.

Life imitating art.....GREED IS GOOD!!!
 
Quote from MajorUrsa:

Yeah, I think anytime any human feels the urge to dominate another is a sign of fear and uncertaintly. It's a form of losing control and not being able to keep above the most primitive level.

Actually I think it was a good movie. What I don't understand is the trippining on this Gekko guy. To me he represents about the worst aspects of human nature. My fear is that since this became the selling point of the movie, the 2nd one will be more of that, instead of showing more of the rotteness and underlying weakness behind it. Maybe that is why Stone won't direct it, cause the producer wanted a different movie than Stone was willing to make.

Ursa..
More...

Stone made the same mistake twice. In Natural Born Killers and Wall Street he attempted to portray monsters; not characters anyone would actually want to identify with. Whether he was plagued by moral relativism, or underestimated the vulgarity of the American appetite for brutality, or some combination of the two, the moral exercise was lost on many, both times.

Much to his frustration, or at least he''s stated that more than once. Gekko exists in the imaginations of those who have seen Wall Street and in the culture it influenced. Why would he desire to go back and exhume that out of control monster, when he failed to convey the full extent of that characters malice and capacity for evil the first time out? His experiment in irony in the postmodern ironic age was superseded by the glamor that dazzled and distracted the impressionable viewers, that he was a pathetic bottomless pit of a man who cared for no one, got somehow obscured.
The movie succeeded but Stones intent did not, much to his chagrin.
 
As of 2007, this is the only movie to win both an Oscar (Best Actor: Michael Douglas) and a Razzie (Worst Supporting Actress: Daryl Hannah).

Got that from the trivia page. And she *did* do a terrible job. How such a bad actress could get such a big movie part is a mystery, (NOT!)

The part where she is getting ready to leave Bud and scoots her shoe across the floor still makes me laugh as the most unconvincing piece of acting ever seen.
 
Quote from IcarusByNight:

His experiment in irony in the postmodern ironic age was superseded by the glamor that dazzled and distracted the impressionable viewers, that he was a pathetic bottomless pit of a man who cared for no one, got somehow obscured.
The movie succeeded but Stones intent did not, much to his chagrin.
More...
Good analysis. Speaking about impressionable viewers. Found this in the "pictures of your tradingstations thread".

Can you believe that??

Ursa..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top