We’ve seen a lot of origin stories in the past few years – Wolverine just came out this summer, Magneto may or may not be happening, there is always Superman and of course Batman’s origin has been told several times. Heck, The Hobbit can even be considered an origin story. Ghost Rider was unfortunately given an origin movie that dated back to the old west. I’m a huge fan of Tremors and the 4th movie went back to the old west as well, for an origin story about the subterranean monster worm.
So I understand why studios and copyright holders want to make origin movies on comic book characters and even monsters, but I cannot for the life of me figure out this latest news coming from “wrastlin” news site Lords of Pain. WWE, in a bid to capitalize on one of their brands, is in the process of making a big-screen film on the origins of the current WWE SmackDown World Heavyweight Champion – The Undertaker. Yeah you read that right, a real-life, old-school wrestler is getting his own origin story. But why?
|
|
So far the only thing known about the film is that it will be set in the 1880s and will focus on “The Undertaker” character. The way WWE has handled its properties in the past (XFL anyone?) makes me think this will turn out badly and be a direct-to-DVD film, but website UGO has 4 good suggestions on how to make this a legitimate and successful film.
“Don’t Let The Undertaker Play The Undertaker”
I absolutely agree; we’ve seen what happens when wrestlers try to take their over-hyped, under-scripted performances from the mat to the screen. It’s neither pretty nor entertaining. Sure there have been some successes; Hulk Hogan (back in the day), Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, John Cena (mildly), even Andre the Giant (The Princess Bride) but there have been some real stinker performance as well. Can anyone say Triple H in Blade III, Kane in See No Evil or Randy “Macho Man” Savage in Spiderman? Even though They Live is a cult classic, Roddy “Rowdy” Piper acted like a cardboard cutout.
“I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass…and I’m all outta bubblegum.”
“Don’t Have The Actors Wrestle”
Again, I agree; in every first movie a wrestler has done, the WWE has felt the need load it up with the lead actors’ “signature” moves. Hulkster did it, “The Rock” did it, John Cena did it and so did Triple H. If we want to watch wrestling moves, then we’ll pile into our jacked-up, mud-covered trucks and head to the coliseum for Monday Night Raw. Onscreen, we just want a decent fight scene.
“Load the movie up with ‘That Guys’”
In case you are wondering, UGO is talking about “the sheriff, the barkeep, the whore with the heart of gold and the evil rich land baron”. These are characters that are common place in most western films. However, UGO is quick to point out that these characters should NOT be played by wrestlers. Yeah, because that’s what we need to see: Coco Beware or The Bushwhackers dressed in chaps and riding horses or manning the saloon bar.
“Don’t Rush Things”
Simply worded but filled with truth. If the WWE wants to make this into a franchise character then they need to take their time and do it right. They shouldn’t go rushing things into production just because they want to make a quick buck. If they take a step back and look at things in a wider perspective, then they might actually produce a film worth watching. After all, audiences like westerns and origin stories. Combining the two together in the right way could turn out promising, but only if the WWE does it right.
SIDE NOTE: As I was typing this, our buds at Film Drunk reported that the WWE is also making a film with The Big Show called Knucklehead, where he plays an orphan that never left the orphanage and almost burns it down. To help pay for the damages, he takes a road trip with the head nun and a shady guy to fight in a MMA tournament to win $100,000. Sigh; when we were talking about Hollywood coming up with original ideas, this isn’t exactly what we meant.
What do you think about an Undertaker origin story and did you watch wrestling growing up? Perhaps you still do; it is, after all, a billion-dollar-a-year industry.
No release date for this Undertaker origin film, but we’ll keep you posted.
Source: UGO, Lords of Pain, Film Drunk
Loading ...
14 Comments
“Don’t Let The Undertaker Play The Undertaker”
Ditto.
I used to watch wrestling, but now its just stupid.
You know, this could be done really well. It could be what Ghost Rider was trying to accomplish.
Supernatural forces with a western influence.
I have watched wrestling since I was a kid and still watch it, there are wrestlers out there who can SELL–meaning they can make you believe in them and their characters, which some actors cannot even do, example, Channing Tatum.
Undertaker is one of those guys who can and don’t knock the dude because A) He can act, B) how hard is it to play a character he has been doing since 1990?, and finally C) You talk trash about Taker, well, he is a bonafinde Hells Angel so you’ll probably be in a lot of trouble, lol.
I think the big show will suprise a lot of people. I saw him do a skit on SNL w/the Rock. Big Show came across as a very likable caracter, I think he will do well.
1.Undertaker (Mark Calloway) is a great actor, he is a very convincing “demonic” character in the world of scripted wrestling, and he was amazing in the episode of “Poultergeist: the Legacy” that he acted in.
2.Kane (Glen Jacobs) in “See No Evil” was great! he was a large psychopath, who beat, tortured and murdered people, and kept his character mostly silent, and looking extremely evil and angry.
Sort of like a “Jason Vorhees” without the hockey mask. if you disliked that movie, or the acting in, you know NOTHING about horror movies (in my honest opinion)
3.Roddy Piper in “They Live” was no worse than 96 percent of all other cheesy/hackey 80’s action flick actors.
Regardless of your opinion of that film, it’s considered a cult classic, and John Carpenter is currently making a killing in DVD sales
@FATGOD – Exactly who are you “hatin’” on with your comments? I surely didn’t bash either the WWE or Undertaker and no one that commented before you spoke ill of them either so I’m confused as to your misdirected anger.
@FATGOD
-oh man i could not stop laughing at what you said (Tears in my eyes!)
ok ok now that i got that out of the way…you know they are going to have “The Undertaker” play “The Undertaker” it’s gonig to happen
Paul, I wasn’t “hatin” on anyone with my Undertaker comment, just stating my opinions on taker… who – while you did not bash – you surely implied that he would be bad in a movie.
I was sticking up for Glen Jacobs and Roddy Piper
Hcastro….what exactly was funny about it?
the fact that you disagree so strongly with my opinions that you laughed at them, shows that you think entirely too much of your own opinions.
@FATGOD – OK, I’m with ya now. I still disagree on having someone play themselves in a movie. I can’t think of one time where that has been done in a biography. Technically this isn’t a true biography but my point remains the same. Live action acting is completely different in-camera acting and getting a sports star (remember Michael Phelps on SNL *groan*) or a wrestler to make that transition isn’t easily done.
Kane was OK at best in SNEHNE, but he wasn’t expected to be anything other than OK. He had no speaking roles and only had to walk around looking spooky like he does in the ring.
BTW, SNEHNE was a mess of a horror film, I’m glad you liked it but I found it to be “eh”.
Side note: Think they will bring back Paul Barer as his sidekick?
The Paul Bearer thing would be difficult. He’s a pretty busy guy, for one thing; running his own wrestling promotion and being a bonafied mortitian. Second to that, he’s a skinny guy now. His weight was approaching a dangerous level and the WWE footed the bill for, I think it was, gastrointestional surgery to potentially save his life. Long story short he doesn’t look much like ‘Paul Bearer’ now cuz he’s all skinny.
I’m in disagreement. I think The Undertaker movie is a brilliant idea. Considering the WWE has practically given The Undertaker a full-fledged background in which he grew up with Kane, and how Paul Bearer is Kane’s step dad, how Taker burned down the funeral home he and Kane lived in as children. They could give light to that entire story through this movie and how Taker came to be a WWE athlete. They could bring back his old attires. Obviously someone else should play Taker and Kane as children and teenagers, but Mark Calaway should play himself as an adult. They should bring back all the older attires. I would call it the The Undertaker Character’s Life Story. They should give light to the five identities The Undertaker has had including Old Western, purple Undertaker, etc. Just some random movie about an Undertaker that has no connection to the story of Mark Calaway’s Undertaker would disappoint. They’re has to be some kind of unique connection like the one I mentioned.
Perhaps I’d be so enthusiastic because I’m an old school fan who has been watching The Undertaker since 1996.
“I can’t think of one time where that has been done in a biography.”
Call me a jerk if you want, but someone capable of making that statement clearly doesn’t know enough about movies to “rant” about them.
Just off the top of my head:
Jackie Robinson in The Jackie Robinson Story
Babe Ruth in Pride of the Yankees
Muhammad Ali in The Greatest
Evel Kneivel in Viva Kneivel
Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris in Safe at Home
Richard Pryor in JoJo Dancer, Your Life is Calling (he may have changed his name, but there was no doubt he was playing himself)
The Beatles in A Hard Day’s Night
And I’m sure could up with dozens more if I were inclined to. Truthfully, the quality of these performances (The Beatles excepted) actually works FOR your argument, but the ignorance of film history in your statement suggests you have a lot to learn before you continuing “screen-ranting”.
@Allan – I’m not going to call you a jerk for pointing out films I’ve never seen or heard of, some of them actually sound enjoyable and I may have to update my NetFlix queue.
However, if I wanted to I could list a bunch of movies from that you have never heard of either and use that as an argument to put you down, but what would be the point of that?
The films you mention are actually biographies of real people in real situations. What we are talking about here is a real person playing a fake character with a fake biography. Also, none of the films you mention were slated to ever be a big screen release (that I’m aware of).
Name me one wrestler that has successfully transferred his square ring character to a big screen adaptation based solely on his acting?
Thanks for your critique of me and my writing, it was much appreciated (read: I didn’t really care what you thought about me.)
Hi,
I am fan of wwe superstars and i am crazy about them..
I watch wwe regularly on my tv and if i miss them i am catch them from internet and i stream some video from the wwe video sites…
So this article will also really like me..
It was a big flop, but back in the mid-90s an origin movie was done about Sting. I think it was call “Origin of the Scorpion” or something, but like I said, humongous flop.
All wrestlers are actors, anyway, so never doubt one of their acting skill. Not all of them are a huge sucess, but look at Tyler Mane in The Devil’s Rejects, and now the Halloween re-vamps. He is proof what kind of acting prowess wrestlers have. So, yes, ‘Taker should play himself.
P.S. They Live! Is an awesome movie. I love it in big part due to the fact it is John Carpenter, and Piper is great in it. And See No Evil, great horror movie.
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!