Shit even Jeff Nathanielson (whatever his name is) the scriptwriter got like I believe over 2 million bucks to “write” RH3, like how Kurtzman and his buddy “wrote” TRANSFORMERS 2.

Also the “Rush Hour” films get increasingly leary in an adolescent manor, which is kind of creepy

Anyways, personally my dislike of Ratner didn’t come from his (pretty decent) movies, but from various stories about him being a douche written everywhere. I think there was an article in Premiere magazine (if you remember that) that painted him as a completely deluded, arrogant ass. Did you ever see the Special Features on The Flight of the Phoenix DVD, where John Moore is running around kicking trashcans or some shit and yelling at people and basically acting like he’s making Schindler’s List? It’s the same thing. Oh, and I think he was quoted as saying about The Family Man “I want this movie to show everyone that even if you’re ONLY making $50,000 a year, then that’s OK”, not thinking the average salary in America was like $22K at the time (probably still is).

Oh, plus I think it’s weird that his name is above the credits in huge font all the time like he’s an actual box office draw, and that he had all these student films and special features about him on the Rush Hour 2 DVD. Seriously, who gives a rat’s ass? I’m not dying to see student films or director profiles from the guy who made All About the Benjamins or Next Day Air or whatever.

Which means that I’m in the uncomfortable position of congratulating Hollywood for *toning down* a piece of literature and making a better story out of it. By the intervention of Michael MIAMI VICE Mann no less!

Maybe he had some THIEF sensibilities left in him, who knows.

The way Mann does it, it’s one of the great scenes of 80s cinema. Ratner’s version is just, crude and obvious and graceless. They’re both competent directors who can get across what’s going on in a scene and communicate it’s various levels of meaning (which is not a given–I’d argue that it’s something Micheal Bay often cannot accomplish, visually or narratively) but Mann’s version has STYLE! Mann’s is the work of an artist, whereas Ratner’s is that of a tradesman, at best. I can just imagine the DP setting up Ratner’s version and rolling his eyes going, “I-a remember how Micheal a-do thissa, eet wassa bella, but this ees fungol…”

Oh, and Mann’s film was originally going to be called Red Dragon, but they changed it because they were scared people would think it was a kung-fu movie.