https://instagram.com/p/BQiaRcTDG93/
:uhh:
This role should be going to some new damn talent smh
Not some damn Jamie
WTF
:melmel:
:plzstop:
Why?
Hmmm he was incredible as Ray. He should leave Biopics alone for now
Sounds good.
If it's a big screen movie, then yeah I see why he got the role.
Quote from: pettypatty on February 16, 2017, 11:28:37 PM
Sounds good.
If it's a big screen movie, then yeah I see why he got the role.
They want to make money
I think he'll do great
I was reading Mahershala Ali's cover story for Hollywood Reporter and he said that this was a dream role for him alongside playing Jack Johnson.
I understand totally why Jamie booked this though. Hollywood ain't trying to risk capital.
NO.
NO.
NO.
THE FUCK.
Should be new talent.
I've always wanted this story to be told...
Jamie Foxx is talented, but he's not what I envisioned.
At all.
Quote from: ?quababe. on February 16, 2017, 11:42:24 PM
I was reading Mahershala Ali's cover story for Hollywood Reporter and he said that this was a dream role for him alongside playing Jack Johnson.
I understand totally why Jamie booked this though. Hollywood ain't trying to risk capital.
He would slay Jack Johnson. :feelinmyself:
It should be Tank
Jamie already did Ray
Jamie is good at impressions, but Marvin isn't animated like Ray was. An unknown or young actor should have gotten this.
They did unknown with James Brown and look how that did
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:43:49 AM
They did unknown with James Brown and look how that did
What does that prove? Jlo was an unknown with Selena, and look at all the unknowns that were in Straight Outta Compton.
They keep trying to make movies about this man. Hopefully, this one sees the light of day.
Quote from: AYR on February 17, 2017, 12:36:35 AM
It should be Tank
Jamie already did Ray
Tank doesn't' remotely give Marvin.
We already know Jamie is good with impressions.
d
This clearly needed to be a new actor
Jamie is old and thick
Marvin was thin and coy
No....
Quote from: Corporate Cannibal. on February 17, 2017, 02:17:38 AM
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:43:49 AM
They did unknown with James Brown and look how that did
unknown has nothing to do with it. Look at New Edition. James' movie just wasn't great.
Did you have to pay to watch New Edition? Bad comparison
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: Corporate Cannibal. on February 17, 2017, 02:17:38 AM
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:43:49 AM
They did unknown with James Brown and look how that did
unknown has nothing to do with it. Look at New Edition. James' movie just wasn't great.
Did you have to pay to watch New Edition? Bad comparison
technically yes because it's on cable which isn't free
Quote from: AYR on February 17, 2017, 12:46:28 PM
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: Corporate Cannibal. on February 17, 2017, 02:17:38 AM
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:43:49 AM
They did unknown with James Brown and look how that did
unknown has nothing to do with it. Look at New Edition. James' movie just wasn't great.
Did you have to pay to watch New Edition? Bad comparison
technically yes because it's on cable which isn't free
b
:dead:
Quote from: AYR on February 17, 2017, 12:46:28 PM
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: Corporate Cannibal. on February 17, 2017, 02:17:38 AM
Quote from: BetterAngels on February 17, 2017, 12:43:49 AM
They did unknown with James Brown and look how that did
unknown has nothing to do with it. Look at New Edition. James' movie just wasn't great.
Did you have to pay to watch New Edition? Bad comparison
technically yes because it's on cable which isn't free
:guys: