That's interesting. I knew they were friends. Now I'm tempted to pick up the book of their correspondence to see if they go into any detail on it.
Let me know if it's worth reading, if you do have decide to check it out.
Travis McGee
Started by
s.a.s. Malko
, Jan 20 2010 12:06 AM
51 replies to this topic
#31
dodge
-
- Veterans
-
- 5068 posts
Commander
- Location:USA
Posted 18 May 2010 - 04:24 PM
Let me know if it's worth reading, if you do have decide to check it out.
#32
TheSaint
-
- Veterans Reserve
-
- 3067 posts
Commander RNR
- Location:Bronx,NY
Posted 18 May 2010 - 08:36 PM
I came across a copy of that book once, in hardcover, at the Strand in NYC. Pretty pricey. I like Dan Rowan but he would've been terrible as Travis.
#33
dodge
-
- Veterans
-
- 5068 posts
Commander
- Location:USA
Posted 20 May 2010 - 05:13 PM
Here's a fascinating article that has some serious bearing (highligted portion) on the casting of McGee:
Where have all the grown-ups gone?
Look at the current crop of action heroes in theaters.
We have a nicely armored Robert Downey Jr. in “Iron Man 2.” A stolid Russell Crowe in “Robin Hood.” And, that tireless veteran, the great Michael Caine, in “Harry Brown.”
Now ask yourself: If it were 2 in the morning, and you were in trouble, who would you want to see on your doorstep?
Pick “Iron Man” if you want — it’s certainly the obvious choice. But I’d vote for either Sir Robin or plain-spoken Harry — even at his advanced age.
Because in their movies, both men come off as men.
And the lone American comes off as — well, kind of a spoiled kid.
It’s not simply his chronological age; Downey is, after all, 45, a time at which one seriously should be considered an adult. Nor is it just the character; “Iron Man” may have his issues, but Downey was no sturdier in “Sherlock Holmes.”
It’s simply that on-screen the actor — a very fine actor, by the way — seems lightweight, easily distracted, not serious. He doesn’t seem like someone who could take charge of a situation. He seems like a child.
And so do most American actors.
Eternal youth
It’s true that we’ve always been an optimistic country, a nation full of ideals and ambitions — and those are the virtues of youth. But that raw, unweathered attitude has so permeated our popular culture, we sometimes seem like a nation of adolescents.
And it’s left our actors at a disadvantage, as Hollywood increasingly imports its movie testosterone from abroad.
The peculiar thing is, American men used to be men almost from boyhood. Think about Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable in “San Francisco” — both about 35 at the time. Or John Wayne, 32 in “Stagecoach.” Or Jimmy Cagney, the same age, in “The Public Enemy.” Or Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas, both all of about 31 when they made “Out of the Past.”
You wouldn’t call any of them boyish. In fact, they might have slugged you if you did.
Back then, to be thought of as a boy — go away kid, ya bother me — was to be thought of as annoying, undependable, unimportant. It you wanted something done, you went to a man. And when you went to the movies, that’s who you saw on-screen.
But then came the revolution — or at least, the ’60s version.
It was an upheaval, and in America, the social civil war soon divided itself along generational lines. Everything old was seen as negative, antiquated, wrong; everything new was positive, relevant, right. The new man of the zeitgeist was shaggy, irreverent, sloppy, casual — and young.
It took a while to work its way through popular culture; the ’60s were the time of Frank Sinatra, Gene Hackman and Lee Marvin, too.
But by the post-Watergate era, leading men had been replaced by leading boys, and what were once seen as liabilities — self-doubt, sexual uncertainty, emotional vulnerability — were enshrined as virtues.
And they’re still worshiped today.
An accent on experience
In Great Britain, though, the same ’60s conflict was defined not by age but by class. Seniority wasn’t seen as the enemy to progress; privilege was. And that allowed a wave of young men with up-from-the-street backgrounds — like Caine, like Richard Harris, like Sean Connery — to redefine stardom.
And there was nothing vaguely hesitant or puppyish or achingly vulnerable about any of them.
That movement took root and has given England, and other countries that draw on its Anglo-Irish culture, generations of grown-up actors.
It cuts across gender lines, providing strong female icons, too. Actresses like Tilda Swinton, Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet don’t just seem more mature than our native-born actresses; they seem more formidable than most of our men.
The result has been a national maturity gap, a lack of seriousness and responsibility that puts American actors at a disadvantage. They’re good at playing devilish, roguish, prankish. They’re fine at playing sensitive, damaged, innocent. But self-motivated, self-sacrificing, self-assured?
Not so much.
Yes, there are exceptions, American leading men who carry a certain on-screen weight. George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Samuel L. Jackson all radiate confidence, competence and calm. The idea of any of them playing an adult character whining about a father who “never told me he loved me” — as Downey does in the “Iron Man” sequel, or Tom Cruise used to do in nearly every movie he made — is absurd.
But Clooney turned 50 this month. Tom Hanks is 53. Jackson is, amazingly, 61. And among their juniors, the number of grown-ups (Liev Schreiber, maybe? Jeffrey Dean Morgan, perhaps?) thins out dramatically.
Think about the current crop of youngish players, the men constantly called upon whenever the screen needs a real dose of machismo — and then think about where they all hail from. Crowe? Australia. Sam Worthington? England. Gerard Butler? Scotland. Christian Bale? Wales. Eric Bana? Australia. Daniel Craig? England.
And why does Hollywood import them? Just try recasting their films and you’ll see.
Or can you imagine Tom Cruise as a violent, hard-bitten cop in “L.A. Confidential”? Tobey Maguire leading a scruffy band of Spartans in “300”? A tortured Mark Wahlberg as “The Dark Knight”? Shia LeBeouf fighting for the soul of Pandora in “Avatar”? Johnny Depp looking for rough, bloody justice in “Munich”?
I didn’t think so.
Growing older but not up
It’s not that the younger generations aren’t full of accomplished actors; Matt Damon, for example, was great as the baby sociopath in “The Talented Mr. Ripley” and has romped convincingly through endless “Oceans” and “Bourne” films.
But cast him in something grittier, something that cuts closer to the bone — as, say, the career Army officer of “The Green Zone” — and that suspension of disbelief goes right out the window.
Leonardo DiCaprio, an excellent actor, has toughened up lately, too, the baby curves of his face giving way to straighter edges. And, yes, he was good as a tired cop in “Shutter Island” (although he was better as a tormented rookie, in “The Departed”).
But did he really convince as a weary ex-mercenary in “Blood Diamond”? As the hard-charging tycoon Howard Hughes, in “The Aviator”? As the CIA’s top Middle East operative in “Body of Lies”?
Not quite.
To his credit, he continues to try. In fact, his production company recently announced it had bought John D. MacDonald’s Travis McGee mysteries. It even plans one, “The Deep Blue Good-by,” as possibly the first in a series, with Oliver Stone to direct and DiCaprio to star.
But McGee is an ex-football player and war veteran. He’s a solid, crewcut specimen, with a suspicious squint and a stiff drink in one meaty fist. That’s not DiCaprio.
That’s Glenn Ford, around the time of “The Big Heat,” or even good old Brian Keith, back before “Family Affair” turned him into a cuddly grump.
But these days all our Brian Keiths and Glenn Fords are on Turner Classic Movies. No American star younger than 50 radiates their big-screen authority.
The male shortage
In the short term, this strange disconnect is good for lots of people. It benefits actors from other English-speaking countries, who get to come here and pick up our blockbuster movie checks. And it benefits American actors who, even as they move through their 40s, can still engage teen audiences.
But what does it say about our own culture when we can no longer produce our own grave, grown-up heroes? And what will it mean to the kinds of stories we tell, when we have to look outside our borders for people to star in them?
It’s a sobering question, although it’s wrong to ask it only of Hollywood. Movies rarely revolutionize their world; mostly they reflect it. If films are casting tentative, prankish, mumbling boy-men in leading roles well, then, that’s who’s leading the culture in real life, too.
Perhaps if, as aging Baby Boomers once declared, “60 is the new 50” then 30 is the new 20. Americans take longer now to graduate from college, move away from home, begin their own families. The timeline has changed. We’re younger longer now, and that’s a fact.
And it’s also true that there will be those who will look at these changes and say, about time. A new age needs new heroes.
They’ll insist that those in-command, alpha-males who used to stride across our movie screens, solving crimes and saving settlers, were only cheap symbols of an authoritarian patriarchy. That those tight-lipped, no-time-for-tears men only promoted the kind of emotionally withholding society that’s kept therapists employed for years.
And they’ll say that it’s far more realistic to have movie stars who are imperfect and irresponsible. They’ll say it’s far more honest to have heroes who, far from being paragons to emulate, are simply even more flawed versions of ourselves. They will even say we’re better off without bigger-than-life stars, or impossibly confident, capable heroes.
Don’t believe them.
source: http://www.nj.com/en..._candle_to.html
Where have all the grown-ups gone?
Look at the current crop of action heroes in theaters.
We have a nicely armored Robert Downey Jr. in “Iron Man 2.” A stolid Russell Crowe in “Robin Hood.” And, that tireless veteran, the great Michael Caine, in “Harry Brown.”
Now ask yourself: If it were 2 in the morning, and you were in trouble, who would you want to see on your doorstep?
Pick “Iron Man” if you want — it’s certainly the obvious choice. But I’d vote for either Sir Robin or plain-spoken Harry — even at his advanced age.
Because in their movies, both men come off as men.
And the lone American comes off as — well, kind of a spoiled kid.
It’s not simply his chronological age; Downey is, after all, 45, a time at which one seriously should be considered an adult. Nor is it just the character; “Iron Man” may have his issues, but Downey was no sturdier in “Sherlock Holmes.”
It’s simply that on-screen the actor — a very fine actor, by the way — seems lightweight, easily distracted, not serious. He doesn’t seem like someone who could take charge of a situation. He seems like a child.
And so do most American actors.
Eternal youth
It’s true that we’ve always been an optimistic country, a nation full of ideals and ambitions — and those are the virtues of youth. But that raw, unweathered attitude has so permeated our popular culture, we sometimes seem like a nation of adolescents.
And it’s left our actors at a disadvantage, as Hollywood increasingly imports its movie testosterone from abroad.
The peculiar thing is, American men used to be men almost from boyhood. Think about Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable in “San Francisco” — both about 35 at the time. Or John Wayne, 32 in “Stagecoach.” Or Jimmy Cagney, the same age, in “The Public Enemy.” Or Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas, both all of about 31 when they made “Out of the Past.”
You wouldn’t call any of them boyish. In fact, they might have slugged you if you did.
Back then, to be thought of as a boy — go away kid, ya bother me — was to be thought of as annoying, undependable, unimportant. It you wanted something done, you went to a man. And when you went to the movies, that’s who you saw on-screen.
But then came the revolution — or at least, the ’60s version.
It was an upheaval, and in America, the social civil war soon divided itself along generational lines. Everything old was seen as negative, antiquated, wrong; everything new was positive, relevant, right. The new man of the zeitgeist was shaggy, irreverent, sloppy, casual — and young.
It took a while to work its way through popular culture; the ’60s were the time of Frank Sinatra, Gene Hackman and Lee Marvin, too.
But by the post-Watergate era, leading men had been replaced by leading boys, and what were once seen as liabilities — self-doubt, sexual uncertainty, emotional vulnerability — were enshrined as virtues.
And they’re still worshiped today.
An accent on experience
In Great Britain, though, the same ’60s conflict was defined not by age but by class. Seniority wasn’t seen as the enemy to progress; privilege was. And that allowed a wave of young men with up-from-the-street backgrounds — like Caine, like Richard Harris, like Sean Connery — to redefine stardom.
And there was nothing vaguely hesitant or puppyish or achingly vulnerable about any of them.
That movement took root and has given England, and other countries that draw on its Anglo-Irish culture, generations of grown-up actors.
It cuts across gender lines, providing strong female icons, too. Actresses like Tilda Swinton, Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet don’t just seem more mature than our native-born actresses; they seem more formidable than most of our men.
The result has been a national maturity gap, a lack of seriousness and responsibility that puts American actors at a disadvantage. They’re good at playing devilish, roguish, prankish. They’re fine at playing sensitive, damaged, innocent. But self-motivated, self-sacrificing, self-assured?
Not so much.
Yes, there are exceptions, American leading men who carry a certain on-screen weight. George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Samuel L. Jackson all radiate confidence, competence and calm. The idea of any of them playing an adult character whining about a father who “never told me he loved me” — as Downey does in the “Iron Man” sequel, or Tom Cruise used to do in nearly every movie he made — is absurd.
But Clooney turned 50 this month. Tom Hanks is 53. Jackson is, amazingly, 61. And among their juniors, the number of grown-ups (Liev Schreiber, maybe? Jeffrey Dean Morgan, perhaps?) thins out dramatically.
Think about the current crop of youngish players, the men constantly called upon whenever the screen needs a real dose of machismo — and then think about where they all hail from. Crowe? Australia. Sam Worthington? England. Gerard Butler? Scotland. Christian Bale? Wales. Eric Bana? Australia. Daniel Craig? England.
And why does Hollywood import them? Just try recasting their films and you’ll see.
Or can you imagine Tom Cruise as a violent, hard-bitten cop in “L.A. Confidential”? Tobey Maguire leading a scruffy band of Spartans in “300”? A tortured Mark Wahlberg as “The Dark Knight”? Shia LeBeouf fighting for the soul of Pandora in “Avatar”? Johnny Depp looking for rough, bloody justice in “Munich”?
I didn’t think so.
Growing older but not up
It’s not that the younger generations aren’t full of accomplished actors; Matt Damon, for example, was great as the baby sociopath in “The Talented Mr. Ripley” and has romped convincingly through endless “Oceans” and “Bourne” films.
But cast him in something grittier, something that cuts closer to the bone — as, say, the career Army officer of “The Green Zone” — and that suspension of disbelief goes right out the window.
Leonardo DiCaprio, an excellent actor, has toughened up lately, too, the baby curves of his face giving way to straighter edges. And, yes, he was good as a tired cop in “Shutter Island” (although he was better as a tormented rookie, in “The Departed”).
But did he really convince as a weary ex-mercenary in “Blood Diamond”? As the hard-charging tycoon Howard Hughes, in “The Aviator”? As the CIA’s top Middle East operative in “Body of Lies”?
Not quite.
To his credit, he continues to try. In fact, his production company recently announced it had bought John D. MacDonald’s Travis McGee mysteries. It even plans one, “The Deep Blue Good-by,” as possibly the first in a series, with Oliver Stone to direct and DiCaprio to star.
But McGee is an ex-football player and war veteran. He’s a solid, crewcut specimen, with a suspicious squint and a stiff drink in one meaty fist. That’s not DiCaprio.
That’s Glenn Ford, around the time of “The Big Heat,” or even good old Brian Keith, back before “Family Affair” turned him into a cuddly grump.
But these days all our Brian Keiths and Glenn Fords are on Turner Classic Movies. No American star younger than 50 radiates their big-screen authority.
The male shortage
In the short term, this strange disconnect is good for lots of people. It benefits actors from other English-speaking countries, who get to come here and pick up our blockbuster movie checks. And it benefits American actors who, even as they move through their 40s, can still engage teen audiences.
But what does it say about our own culture when we can no longer produce our own grave, grown-up heroes? And what will it mean to the kinds of stories we tell, when we have to look outside our borders for people to star in them?
It’s a sobering question, although it’s wrong to ask it only of Hollywood. Movies rarely revolutionize their world; mostly they reflect it. If films are casting tentative, prankish, mumbling boy-men in leading roles well, then, that’s who’s leading the culture in real life, too.
Perhaps if, as aging Baby Boomers once declared, “60 is the new 50” then 30 is the new 20. Americans take longer now to graduate from college, move away from home, begin their own families. The timeline has changed. We’re younger longer now, and that’s a fact.
And it’s also true that there will be those who will look at these changes and say, about time. A new age needs new heroes.
They’ll insist that those in-command, alpha-males who used to stride across our movie screens, solving crimes and saving settlers, were only cheap symbols of an authoritarian patriarchy. That those tight-lipped, no-time-for-tears men only promoted the kind of emotionally withholding society that’s kept therapists employed for years.
And they’ll say that it’s far more realistic to have movie stars who are imperfect and irresponsible. They’ll say it’s far more honest to have heroes who, far from being paragons to emulate, are simply even more flawed versions of ourselves. They will even say we’re better off without bigger-than-life stars, or impossibly confident, capable heroes.
Don’t believe them.
source: http://www.nj.com/en..._candle_to.html
#34
Jackanaples
-
- Crew
-
- 992 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Hollywood, CA
Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:31 PM
Good catch, Dodge! I still hope that DiCaprio and Stone will ultimately pass on the Travis McGee project; freeing it up for a better pairing of actor and director.
#35
Binyamin
-
- Veterans
-
- 1075 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean
Posted 21 May 2010 - 01:26 AM
There are plenty of American alpha male actors. They're just all in television.
#36
Binyamin
-
- Veterans
-
- 1075 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean
Posted 28 May 2010 - 07:24 PM
To add to the DiCaprio rumors, check out how much he looks like McGee on the "Inception" posters:
http://twitpic.com/1r0sld/full
That's two instances of matching the literary illustration almost perfectly. You've gotta admit, the man seems born to play him.
http://twitpic.com/1r0sld/full
That's two instances of matching the literary illustration almost perfectly. You've gotta admit, the man seems born to play him.
#37
dodge
-
- Veterans
-
- 5068 posts
Commander
- Location:USA
Posted 01 June 2010 - 05:18 PM
In CRIMSON SKIN, the last McGee-er I read, McGee philosophizes about the dangers of exercise: weightlifting and jogging especially horrify him...but even pushups, he believes, are next to suicidal. He believes in stretching and perhaps a little Tai Chi to stay loose. If they're gonna stay true to the series, Leonardo had best not get too buff.
#39
Jackanaples
-
- Crew
-
- 992 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Hollywood, CA
Posted 25 April 2011 - 10:15 PM
I am still hoping that DiCaprio passes on/is talked out of/loses interest in this project. Josh Holloway or Kevin McKidd please. Or an even more suitable unknown that I can only imagine.
#40
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 26 April 2011 - 03:27 PM
Is that not a stillborn project? No real news for close to a year or longer. I only expect them to pick this up again once the superheroes tank royally, no sooner.
#41
Jackanaples
-
- Crew
-
- 992 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Hollywood, CA
Posted 26 April 2011 - 03:53 PM
Well, I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR or GREEN LANTERN to tank this summer. You'd be in for a long wait I'm guessing. Maybe X-MEN: FIRST CLASS will not do quite as well.
Anyway, the success of superhero movies or no shouldn't have a bearing on whether a Travis McGee movie gets made or not. Though if it has to be DiCaprio in the role I would prefer it not even get made.
Anyway, the success of superhero movies or no shouldn't have a bearing on whether a Travis McGee movie gets made or not. Though if it has to be DiCaprio in the role I would prefer it not even get made.
#42
Binyamin
-
- Veterans
-
- 1075 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean
Posted 26 April 2011 - 04:35 PM
Aaron Eckhart. I'm just saying.
#43
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 26 April 2011 - 04:46 PM
Well, I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR or GREEN LANTERN to tank this summer. You'd be in for a long wait I'm guessing. Maybe X-MEN: FIRST CLASS will not do quite as well.
Anyway, the success of superhero movies or no shouldn't have a bearing on whether a Travis McGee movie gets made or not. Though if it has to be DiCaprio in the role I would prefer it not even get made.
Don't think so either, I just expect the superhero-hype will prevent a McGee adaption because the aim would be for a series and the market is a little crowded at the moment. Doubt they would like to introduce a character who has sailed below most people's radar for some time now.
#44
Jackanaples
-
- Crew
-
- 992 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Hollywood, CA
Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:15 PM
The Jason Bourne novels weren't exactly burning up the bestseller lists when the first one of those movies came out either. Ludlum had been dead for years and I think the last Bourne was published in the 1980's.
I think there's room for another action hero movie franchise. Especially one that's designed from the outset to be a contrast to the others: sexier, more brutal, and lower tech.
Binyamin, I like the idea of Aaron Eckert as McGee.
I think there's room for another action hero movie franchise. Especially one that's designed from the outset to be a contrast to the others: sexier, more brutal, and lower tech.
Binyamin, I like the idea of Aaron Eckert as McGee.
#45
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:36 PM
The Jason Bourne novels weren't exactly burning up the bestseller lists when the first one of those movies came out either. Ludlum had been dead for years and I think the last Bourne was published in the 1980's.
I think there's room for another action hero movie franchise. Especially one that's designed from the outset to be a contrast to the others: sexier, more brutal, and lower tech.
Binyamin, I like the idea of Aaron Eckert as McGee.
Good points indeed.
#46
Jackanaples
-
- Crew
-
- 992 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Hollywood, CA
Posted 26 April 2011 - 07:56 PM
For those who are interested, there's a great blog devoted to all things John D. MacDonald at:
http://thetrapofsolidgold.blogspot.com
There's tons of information there. You can easily waste an entire afternoon going through all the posts.
http://thetrapofsolidgold.blogspot.com
There's tons of information there. You can easily waste an entire afternoon going through all the posts.
Edited by Jackanaples, 26 April 2011 - 07:59 PM.
#47
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 27 April 2011 - 11:59 AM
Thanks for sharing this. I had no idea King was so much into MacDonald, must have escaped me. Interesting piece on dialogue for screen vs printed dialogue. Highly amusing and instructive, must pick up more of MacDonald's work.
#48
Binyamin
-
- Veterans
-
- 1075 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean
Posted 27 April 2011 - 06:28 PM
I think there's room for another action hero movie franchise.
Besides, McGee isn't really an action hero. It's more film noir, hard-boiled detective, dirty sexy adventure, not action. How many fights does Trav get into in a book, one or two? Not many. Make him different. It would work.
#49
Jackanaples
-
- Crew
-
- 992 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Hollywood, CA
Posted 27 April 2011 - 07:10 PM
I agree, and you'll be happy to know that the script they were talking about using as of a couple years ago was a very close adaptation of The Deep Blue Good-by. They didn't fill it full of gratuitous action and explosions, and it showed off the character of Travis McGee to good effect.
#50
Jackanaples
-
- Crew
-
- 992 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Hollywood, CA
Posted 30 May 2011 - 06:48 PM
Don't know if anyone's mentioned him, but I think Thomas Jane would make an excellent Travis McGee.
#51
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 30 May 2011 - 07:12 PM
Only remember him from Magnolia and The Mist. But the pics Google provides do indeed give a McGee-ish impression.
#52
Binyamin
-
- Veterans
-
- 1075 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:On Assignment in the Caribbean
Posted 31 May 2011 - 05:10 AM
Don't know if anyone's mentioned him, but I think Thomas Jane would make an excellent Travis McGee.
Hell yes. He combines brooding + intelligent + rebel very well. The Punisher. And and "Give em Hell Malone" where he plays a gritty private eye....
That's Trav.