Malcolm X (1992) is this the definitive version or should there be another adaptation?

[Dr. Narcisse]

Inspired by the breh @MartyMcFly who pointed out there was some backlash against Spike Lee getting the job. And also by seeing enough people on here and other places saying that Spike didn't really get Malcolm all the way right. At least saying they could have spent time focusing on more important things.

Would you be down for another Malcolm X film (directed by another high caliber black director of course, such as McQueen, Jenkins, Ava or Coogler) or is there no need to tread those waters?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Answered it in the other thread but nah and I've got a few reasons why.

Chief among them, it'll be a daunting task for anyone to step into Denzel's shoes and play the role for a full length flick so off top it'll be a thankless job. You'll always be compared to Denzel and it's not a good look. The best we'll get on that front, in my eyes, are cameos, like the one in Selma.

B, no studio is going to give any director that amount of leeway that Spike got on this one. Dude went over budget, made a 3 hour epic, needed his black celebrity friends to bail him out, and he took A LOT of chances. Studios are really timid now. If you did a Malcolm X movie now, it would be a low budget indie, much like Blakkklansman. And that's no diss to that movie, but a movie about Malcolm on that level deserves a big canvas and you're not getting that anymore unless the studio system changes dramatically overnight. Unless you're a guaranteed moneymaker, you aren't really going to get that green light. And the directors you mentioned hold Spike and that movie too high in esteem to even touch the material. It's like when you ask the Farrelly brothers to make a golf movie and they always say "shyt, it's been done and it won't be done any better than Caddyshack"

Third, we got a full biopic on homie. We got his life as a pimp, a leader, and the man he was at his death. I don't need to see that story again. If you're going to do another Malcolm story, restrict it to one portion of his life, like Selma, and explore him from that perspective. Trying to adapt his autobiography again feels like a fool's errand.

There's a way to do another Malcolm X movie but it has to be a complete 180 from the one Spike and Denzel did. I'm not talking about whether it was true to Malcolm or none of that shyt, I'm talking purely on a film basis and a story basis, you gotta be different. IF your story won't be different enough or you can't figure out an angle that wasn't touched already, don't do it.

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

It would be very stupid to make another Malcolm X movie that isn't a documentary

What would be be the point?

 

[R=G]

Nope. Big mistake. Documentary for 2018. That's it.

 

[Dynamite James]

Leave it alone.

 

[Mortal1]

Answered it in the other thread but nah and I've got a few reasons why.

Chief among them, it'll be a daunting task for anyone to step into Denzel's shoes and play the role for a full length flick so off top it'll be a thankless job. You'll always be compared to Denzel and it's not a good look. The best we'll get on that front, in my eyes, are cameos, like the one in Selma.

B, no studio is going to give any director that amount of leeway that Spike got on this one. Dude went over budget, made a 3 hour epic, needed his black celebrity friends to bail him out, and he took A LOT of chances. Studios are really timid now. If you did a Malcolm X movie now, it would be a low budget indie, much like Blakkklansman. And that's no diss to that movie, but a movie about Malcolm on that level deserves a big canvas and you're not getting that anymore unless the studio system changes dramatically overnight. Unless you're a guaranteed moneymaker, you aren't really going to get that green light. And the directors you mentioned hold Spike and that movie too high in esteem to even touch the material. It's like when you ask the Farrelly brothers to make a golf movie and they always say "shyt, it's been done and it won't be done any better than Caddyshack"

Third, we got a full biopic on homie. We got his life as a pimp, a leader, and the man he was at his death. I don't need to see that story again. If you're going to do another Malcolm story, restrict it to one portion of his life, like Selma, and explore him from that perspective. Trying to adapt his autobiography again feels like a fool's errand.

There's a way to do another Malcolm X movie but it has to be a complete 180 from the one Spike and Denzel did. I'm not talking about whether it was true to Malcolm or none of that shyt, I'm talking purely on a film basis and a story basis, you gotta be different. IF your story won't be different enough or you can't figure out an angle that wasn't touched already, don't do it.

/Thread

 

[Ziggiy]

The short answer is No


For the long answer. See @MartyMcFly

 

[The Intergalactic Koala]

Nothing is fukking with the original especially this introduction:

 

[MartyMcFly]

Appreciate that @Ziggiy

Here's some other cold hard math: Spike's budget was 28 mil, he went over to make it 33 mil. The movie only made 48.2 million. So the studio took a big L on that one from a money standpoint. 33 mil today would be about $60 mil. Selma, for comparison sake, costs 20 million to make. You're not getting $60 mil to make a Malcolm X movie or any biopic about anyone, not even Jesus Christ, in 2018. It would be on the 20 million level like Selma. You can't make the movie Spike made on $20 mil unless you're Houdini and I'm sure even he'd have a few issues. So the movie we got will be the Definitive Malcolm X movie if only because of numbers and numbers will never ever ever lie.

 

[The Intergalactic Koala]

Appreciate that @Ziggiy

Here's some other cold hard math: Spike's budget was 28 mil, he went over to make it 33 mil. The movie only made 48.2 million. So the studio took a big L on that one from a money standpoint. 33 mil today would be about $60 mil. Selma, for comparison sake, costs 20 million to make. You're not getting $60 mil to make a Malcolm X movie or any biopic about anyone, not even Jesus Christ, in 2018. It would be on the 20 million level like Selma. You can't make the movie Spike made on $20 mil unless you're Houdini and I'm sure even he'd have a few issues. So the movie we got will be the Definitive Malcolm X movie if only because of numbers and numbers will never ever ever lie.

/thread

 

[Dirty Mcdrawz]

@MartyMcFly pretty much killed this thread breh...

 

[Ziggiy]

Appreciate that @Ziggiy

Here's some other cold hard math: Spike's budget was 28 mil, he went over to make it 33 mil. The movie only made 48.2 million. So the studio took a big L on that one from a money standpoint. 33 mil today would be about $60 mil. Selma, for comparison sake, costs 20 million to make. You're not getting $60 mil to make a Malcolm X movie or any biopic about anyone, not even Jesus Christ, in 2018. It would be on the 20 million level like Selma. You can't make the movie Spike made on $20 mil unless you're Houdini and I'm sure even he'd have a few issues. So the movie we got will be the Definitive Malcolm X movie if only because of numbers and numbers will never ever ever lie.

Spike also put up his OWN salary and Denzel gave up a milion of his salary to get it finished. It was the first movie to film on location in Mecca.

Spike was absolutely DETERMINED to get that movie made. I will forever respect him for how he spearheaded that film. He even told press outlets he would only conduct interviews with Black interviewers, some publications didn’t even HAVE blsck employees and had to go hire some.

 

[MartyMcFly]

@MartyMcFly pretty much killed this thread breh...

I mean, shyt is just facts. You can't catch that lightning in a bottle again. A studio giving up $60 mil to make something that's not a four quadrant movie in 2018 isn't happening. Also I doubt any of us really want to see another Malcolm X movie, at least not enough of us to make it a successful movie. Especially when the studio looks at the last one and says "well that lost money, why would we do that again?" And the next time a director goes over budget, better believe they're getting yanked off the project and no amount of celebrity money will make them change their minds.

Spike also put up his OWN salary and Denzel gave up a milion of his salary to get it finished. It was the firdt movie to film on location in Mecca.

Spike was absolutely DETERMINED to get that movie made. I will forever respect him for how he spearheaded that film. He even told press outlets he would only conduct interviews with Black interviewers, some publications didn’t even HAVE blsck employees and had to go hire some.

It's funny you say that because my dad feels the exact opposite. He didn't like Spike going over budget, didn't like that he needed people to bail him out, and felt he mismanaged the whole thing. He liked the movie, didn't love the movie, but he felt Spike made it all about Spike, which is a thing Spike is known to do.

 

[BK360NATL]

Appreciate that @Ziggiy

Here's some other cold hard math: Spike's budget was 28 mil, he went over to make it 33 mil. The movie only made 48.2 million. So the studio took a big L on that one from a money standpoint. 33 mil today would be about $60 mil. Selma, for comparison sake, costs 20 million to make. You're not getting $60 mil to make a Malcolm X movie or any biopic about anyone, not even Jesus Christ, in 2018. It would be on the 20 million level like Selma. You can't make the movie Spike made on $20 mil unless you're Houdini and I'm sure even he'd have a few issues. So the movie we got will be the Definitive Malcolm X movie if only because of numbers and numbers will never ever ever lie.

Spike Lee Says Money From Blacks Saved 'X'

The studio??? Man....Spike had to get financing from Jordan, Magic, Prince, Cosby, Oprah, plus his $2 million of his own $3 million salary to fund the movie. Those folks didn't "invest" in the movie. Nor was it a loan. They knew what was at stake, and had the premier black director and actor of the times onboard to tell this important story. Spike and Denzel delivered a classic.

No need for another movie on Brother Malcolm. They did him justice. In today's times, no studio would allow this story to be told this way, nor so long of running time for this type of subject matter. Studios today are way too interested in box office numbers. Even Black Panther had to have "other" characters in Wakanda.....

 

[MartyMcFly]

Spike Lee Says Money From Blacks Saved 'X'

The studio??? Man....Spike had to get financing from Jordan, Magic, Prince, Cosby, Oprah, plus his $2 million of his own $3 million salary to fund the movie. Those folks didn't "invest" in the movie. Nor was it a loan. They knew what was at stake, and had the premier black director and actor of the times onboard to tell this important story. Spike and Denzel delivered a classic.

No need for another movie on Brother Malcolm. They did him justice. In today's times, no studio would allow this story to be told this way, nor so long of running time for this type of subject matter. Studios today are way too interested in box office numbers. Even Black Panther had to have "other" characters in Wakanda.....

Studio still lost money though. They invested the 28 mil. He needed an extra 5. So yeah they lost their money. Not saying he didn't get help from others but I'm looking at it from a studio perspective right now and I'd see we put in 28, you only made in the mid 40s so we took an L and we ain't doing it again