MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Return Of Jamie Foxx

One month after the rather ugly story of Jamie Foxx and his unexpected exit from Dreamgirls ran on The Hot Button, I am pleased to see that Foxx and his management came back to the table, bringing their demands back into line with reality for the Oscar winning star… figure about half.
As many of you figured out back then, Eddie Murphy is the superstar who is likely to take a supporting role that could bring him his first Oscar nomination.
Fewer of you figured out that

Be Sociable, Share!

17 Responses to “The Return Of Jamie Foxx”

  1. biscuits says:

    Dave, c’mon… I know you pride yourself on getting a jump start on oscar forecasting, but isn’t it a little bit foolish to be touting a nod for Eddie Murphy only two sentences before telling us his deal isn’t even closed yet? I mean I know you’re an intuitive guy and all, but how about you at least wait until the first day of shooting before you hand him the award.

  2. KamikazeCamel says:

    “This movie is beginning to feel smell of being a category changer.”
    Say what now?
    I generally like Foxx so I’m sure this is a good thing… just as long as he doesn’t play a blind legend I’LL BE FINE.
    My god, Ray really was shithouse.
    And, hey, if Queen Latifah can get an Oscar nomination then I’m sure Eddie Murphy can. But what are the chances of them reading out this…
    “The nominees for Best Performance by an Actress in a a Lead Role are… Beyonce, in Dreamgirls.”
    …?

  3. David Poland says:

    I’m not handing Eddie the award. But the film looks like it will be prestigious and the role is a scene stealer.
    Will Ferrell will steal scenes in The Producers, but we’ve seen the schtick he’ll us before. But Eddie will be stretching in just the way The Academy likes.
    And I don’t think that the Eddie Murphy thing would have been leaked to Variety if it wasn’t pretty sure… just being cautious.

  4. L&DB says:

    We got rid of Usher Raymond once. Yet he returned with a big hit single, a twice released album that went number once twice, and now owns a part of the Clevland Cavaliers. If only he could go away again! Please; not Usher Raymond the actor! ANYTHING BUT THAT! The same goes for that charisma black hole known as Timberlake.

  5. joefitz84 says:

    Hell will freeze over before Eddie Murphy claims an Oscar. But I’m sure plenty of people said before Hilary Swank, Marissa Tomei and Tom Hanks won.

  6. CaramelSundae says:

    I’m happy that Jamie Foxx has returned to the project and that Eddie Murphy may finally get a role that’s worthy of his underappreciated talents. But Beyonce Knowles in the Deena role worries me.
    While she’s fine singer, she has a screen presence that is at once too stunned, too tentative and too set on being liked to be right for the role of an ambitious diva Like Deena.
    Why can’t a singing and acting powerhouse like Heather Headley get any respect? And with Foxx and Murphy on board, it’s not like they need additional big names.

  7. bicycle bob says:

    she wasn’t bad in austin powers 3 and we all the know the acting there is as good as it gets

  8. KamikazeCamel says:

    Oh, I was agreeing with you David! The Queen Latifah thing was a reference to the whole “if you’re in the big thing, they’ll give you something no matter who you are”. If Queen Latifah, a black rapper comedian with the name Queen Latifah can get a nod I’m sure Eddie Murphy, who has been around the block many-a-time, can get one if Dreamgirls turns into the Chicago of 2006.
    Nobody said Hilary Swank would never get an Oscar, because she had never been in anything (apart from the Buffy movie and some other non-seen junk). Marisa Tomei on the other hand…

  9. chris says:

    Actually, the Beyonce part wouldn’t be the best actress part, anyway. The role of Effie — who will, apparently, be played by an unknown (she should be, anyway) — is the lead. The Beyonce part is a supporting role, unless the movie dramatically alters the stage show.

  10. Mark says:

    I didn’t know we were getting Harlem Knights 2.

  11. vowelguy says:

    Deena Jones (Beyonce’s character) is not really a diva — she becomes the star because of Curtis (Foxx’s role), who’s the evil character in the show. I’d agree that Beyonce might be a bad fit for a conniving back-stabber, but that’s not this part.
    It’s also not really a supporting character — Sheryl Lee Ralph -who originated the role on Broadway- got a Best Actress Tony nomination. Sure, Effie is the top part, but Deena is also a major character.
    I adored the Musical, but was expecting the movie to be a dud. The casting, however, is giving me encouragment…

  12. Chester says:

    I saw the original Broadway production of “Dreamgirls” a couple of times with different casts. The show stands or falls on the shoulders of whoever is playing Effie, who IMHO without question is the heart and certainly the soul of the story. I think Beyonce, Foxx and Murphy are good casting choices who fit their particular parts very well, but I hope the filmmakers won’t be forced to expand their roles too much because it’s Effie who brings the house down every time.

  13. KamikazeCamel says:

    I don’t know anything about the original musical so I didn’t know who were mains and who were supporting. I just assumed Beyonce was the main role.
    My mistake, i suppose.

  14. Terence D says:

    Eddie Murphy needs a really good role. He has to end this Daddy Day Care type stuff and go back to great work.

  15. joefitz84 says:

    I have almost given up on Eddie Murphy. he has let me down one too many times.

  16. bicycle bob says:

    anyone with as much talent as eddie has should never be discounted

  17. Demetrius says:

    Usher? I was hoping for an unknown for C.C. That’s cool though, and he’s not the choreographer, he’s the writer. Eddie’s getting the role I thought would be good for Jamie, and Jamie’s getting the role I thought would be good for Taye Diggs, but it’s all good. Can hardly wait to see who will play Lorrell and Effie!

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon