Movies & TV / Columns

411 Fact or Fiction Movies/TV: Would Jason Statham Be a Good Bullseye for Daredevil?

June 12, 2015 | Posted by Ben Piper

Dear God, there really is nothing on TV right now. I mean, it’s bad. When your only salvation is a baseball game or reruns of Castle, you know you’re hurting for entertainment.

So it’s probably good that I have this week’s Fact or Fiction to put together. Here to help out is Mathew Sforcina and Michael Weyer.

1. Jurassic World will be an entertaining and worthy addition to the franchise.

Mathew Sforcina : FACT, but that relies on a pretty low opinion of the franchise as a whole. Yes, the original Jurassic Park was an excellent technical showcase, and the film that stuff got wrapped around was pretty good too. And the sequels are pretty harmless, but they’re hardly worthy successors. So the franchise isn’t really a venerable one that requires pure gold to warrant entry. Sure, it’s going to be a decent action film, plagued with most of the current issues with CGI (the need for less being more and the lack of selling impact and the over-abundance of big showy… Sorry, slipped into my wrestling vet mode there), and it won’t be the silver bullet Hollywood wanted to boost a somewhat disappointing 2015 at the box office, but Chris Pratt is on a roll, and it’ll be fine. Won’t be the epic memorable event like the first one, but sure, it’ll hold up its end of the franchise.

Michael Weyer : FACT, although I do think it may not be as great as some expect. The lack of Spielberg will hurt and I’m worried about the over-reliance on CGI spectacle and giving away most of the “money shots” in the trailers. Still, Pratt looks good as the lead along with Bryce Dallas Howard and it’s still freaking dinosaurs with humans so it should be a good time. I won’t rank it among the best of the summer but it’s still a franchise with plenty of life to it and should give us a good popcorn weekend flick. Here’s hoping it doesn’t become the Jaws the Revenge of the franchise though.

Jason Statham would be a great choice to play Bullseye on Netflix’s Daredevil.

Mathew Sforcina : FACT , even though it’s apparently not happening, and there’s better options in play. I mean, from a purely basic casting choice, sure. Statham does action better than almost anyone else right now, he’s expressed an interest in the past in the role, and Daredevil’s as good a choice as anything for a man who hates green screening. And given the current state of play, pretty much every actor is going to end up in either the DC or Marvel universe at some point. But as far as better options, most of the villains I’d want him to play are taken, but I think he’d probably be better in his own, smaller project in DC since they’re not quite as focused on hooking everything up and thus he wouldn’t have to do green screen stuff as much. Or, failing that? The Punisher. Just make it he was on vacation in NYC and go from there. But sure, bare bones, it would be a good casting choice.

Michael Weyer : FACT – The guy is a serious bad-ass and can easily portray the master assassin of Marvel Comics. Colin Ferrell’s performance was a highlight of the 2003 movie but Staham can avoid camping it up, make Bullseye a seriously twisted figure who’s believable as a monster killer and love to see him cut loose in the show’s great style.

Dwayne Johnson starring in a remake of Big Trouble In Little China is an idea you can get behind.

Mathew Sforcina : FICTION – Nothing against the man, as a wrestling fan and a movie enjoyer he’s up there as an action hero and actor and wrestler and all round awesome human being most of the time. But I don’t see this working. Not out of any great veneration of the original, but simply because casting Rock in this makes no sense. Jack Burton, as a character, worked because he talked big but didn’t seem like he could back it up, which he didn’t until he did, which sounds silly, but you’ve seen it, you know what I mean. And if you haven’t seen it, go watch it, it’s awesome. Anyway, I get Rock as the big talker, sure, but unless he’s going to stop training for 6 months, there’s no way I’d buy the idea of not buying him as an action hero and stuff. Thus removing a bit part of the original’s charm. I’m sure he’s a fan and he’s got his heart in the right place, but I don’t like this. Besides, who the hell do you get to play Lo Pan? I mean, what, Jackie Chan?

Michael Weyer : FICTION – What first-timers don’t quite understand is something that Carpenter and Russell made clear in the movie’s audio commentary: Jack Burton isn’t the hero of the story, he’s the sidekick who thinks he’s the hero. That’s what makes the movie work so wonderfully and why it’s so beloved. But with Johnson in the lead, we’ll get just a pure-on action movie and such and that ruins what makes it all shine. I love the original, one of the best action comedies ever but a remake just sounds a bad idea, especially by making Burton the hero he was never meant to be.


A live- action Night On Bald Mountain movie is a horrible idea.

Michael Weyer : FACT – Really, is Disney that out of ideas? Now, I adore Fantasia as one of the most genius bits of classic animation. And “Night on Bald Mountain” is brilliant with its version of Chernobog. Here’s the thing: It works because it’s so short, just a few minutes for the demonic figure to appear, frighten you and then vanish. Trying to drag that out for a full scale movie just doesn’t work, not to mention a CGI Chernobog will just look terrible compared to the original animated version, it will lack the power and just be a mess. There are plenty of other animated properties to shift to live action but turning a ten-minute piece to a full feature is just nuts.

Mathew Sforcina : FICTION – I went back and forth on this one. While I do see Michael’s point, and I agree that the film will not be any good if it gets made, I can’t bring myself to agree that the basic idea is bad. Movies right now are mostly falling into franchises (either ongoing or potential) or remakes, reboots and making movies based on whatever ideas and concepts studios already own. And once you accept that that’s not going to change any time soon, this isn’t the worst choice. It’s a memorable and almost iconic visual, and high fantasy is pretty solid ground for Disney. I don’t think it’ll work, but I can see the logic. And in this day and age, that’s the best you can hope for.

You’d be interested in a documentary about the failed making of George Miller’s Justice League.

Michael Weyer : FACT – I always adore the “could have been” stories and we’ve gotten great ones on Kevin Smith’s Superman and others. This could be a truly unique tale as Miller is a fantastic storyteller in every way and love to see him cut loose about what his plans could have been. Given the rise of comic book movies, it would be very interesting to see how vastly different this movie would have changed the landscape and whether or not it would have helped or hurt DC’s movie plans today. If nothing else, all that work in pre-production deserves to be seen and be as just as intriguing as the movie itself for fans of the genre and the action master.

Mathew Sforcina : FACT – I like a really good superhero movie, and I like a really bad superhero movie, for riffing purposes. And I like a good documentary about Hollywood shenanigans, so either way I’m fully on board with this. Bring it on please.

You have no interest in a Three Stooges sequel.

Michael Weyer : FACT – I had no interest in the first one so sure as hell not this. I prefer the classic Stooges, not some modern knock-offs and so I’ll ignore this one as much as I did the first and with all respect, barely enough interest to even answer this question. Which should say my opinion quite enough.

Mathew Sforcina : FACT – I’ll do you one better, I don’t even like the original Stooges. Nothing against anyone involved, but you’d have to chain me down and hold my eyes open to make me watch this.

And there it is. Mathew and Michael agree more often than not. Thanks to them both for taking part. See you all next week.