Idea about the Elvis tv series in the works by Core/EPE

[KPM]

the problem with a big screen bio of Elvis is, has and always be trying to find someone who can even come close to filling his Charismatic shoes.
I do not see that ever really happening and most producers who "think" of doing his bio-end up seeing that in time.

[vivaelvis]

the problem with a big screen bio of Elvis is, has and always be trying to find someone who can even come close to filling his Charismatic shoes.
I do not see that ever really happening and most producers who "think" of doing his bio-end up seeing that in time.

I agree with this. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can capture the true charisma of Elvis.

[vivaelvis]

I saw a commercial tonight for a Michael Jackson special on Thanksgiving night to promote the 25th Anniversary of the Bad album. I thought to myself "Sony gives MJ a TV special but can't even give Elvis decent promotion for the 40th anniversary of the MSG shows?".

[Snake Eyes]

the problem with a big screen bio of Elvis is, has and always be trying to find someone who can even come close to filling his Charismatic shoes.
I do not see that ever really happening and most producers who "think" of doing his bio-end up seeing that in time.

I agree with this completely, I cannot think of a current young actor who could play Elvis and I'd even go so far as to say any unknown actors just couldn't cut the mustard either.

[Snake Eyes]

I saw a commercial tonight for a Michael Jackson special on Thanksgiving night to promote the 25th Anniversary of the Bad album. I thought to myself "Sony gives MJ a TV special but can't even give Elvis decent promotion for the 40th anniversary of the MSG shows?".

I know, it completely sucks. The only adverts I've seen have been on youtube.

[debtdbruno]

it was on channel 5 news a couple of days ago..........nearly jumped out of my seat I was so shocked

[King Of The Whole World]

I saw a commercial tonight for a Michael Jackson special on Thanksgiving night to promote the 25th Anniversary of the Bad album. I thought to myself "Sony gives MJ a TV special but can't even give Elvis decent promotion for the 40th anniversary of the MSG shows?".

I think you have to remember they are still trying to get their money back on Jackson, they lost millions on Jackson and with Elvis they have already made their money back ten-fold.

But in saying that I would love to see a special about Elvis at MSG on national tv. That would be cool for the king of cool.

[KPM]

I think you have to remember they are still trying to get their money back on Jackson, they lost millions on Jackson and with Elvis they have already made their money back ten-fold.

But in saying that I would love to see a special about Elvis at MSG on national tv. That would be cool for the king of cool.

You are so correct-MJ may be making a lot of money but his estate still has a huge debt to Sony which the estate needs to get paid considering they hold the Beatles publishing catalogue as collateral on the money Sony advanced MJ over many years. Even after the huge earnings since his death-the debt is not fully, completely paid.
As far as earnings by dead celebrity MJ has some advantages over Elvis.
MJs estate makes money from his record sales which MJ gets all royaltees due him for every release (he is not limited as is Elvis's estate that does not get royaltees except for records recorded from 73 forward) he gets publishing royaltees for a great portion of the Beatles greatest music and other music publishing he owns, he gets songwriter royaltees for music he wrote, and believe it or not he gets some profits from Elvis recordings since he got Sony stock in his 90s recording contract with Sony.

[poor boy]

the problem with a big screen bio of Elvis is, has and always be trying to find someone who can even come close to filling his Charismatic shoes.
I do not see that ever really happening and most producers who "think" of doing his bio-end up seeing that in time.

Im sorry i think this is a cop out . Of coarse they could get someone to play him properly and do him justice if they looked hard enough. No one is saying you are going to find someone who is exactly the same thats why its called acting. Kurt Russell did an excellent job & proved if you get the right actor it can be done and done well.

[KPM]

Im sorry i think this is a cop out . Of coarse they could get someone to play him properly and do him justice if they looked hard enough. No one is saying you are going to find someone who is exactly the same thats why its called acting. Kurt Russell did an excellent job & proved if you get the right actor it can be done and done well.

Cop out? Not in the least-Kurt Russell did do a good job-but even with his fine performance in a flawed TV movie....his screen presence came no where near that of Elvis....everyone always says Elvis was one of a kind, charisma, talent, looks, personality........and I believe that is 100% true.
If you have a one of a kind individual it is extremely hard to find someone who can compete with that type of "uniqness"
So either we are all wrong and Elvis is not "one of a kind special" or it is going to be very very hard for anyone to compete and replicate that uniqness in a bio pic....Producers have to be considering this when thinking of investing 30-50 million on a bio-pic about Elvis.
So far Kurt Russell is the high point of anyone portraying Elvis-but Kurt himself has said it was hard to compete with someone who had that type of charisma...he said when watching an Elvis film the one thing that always made it worth watching was in fact-"ELVIS" who raised the films he was in just by being in them.

[Brian]

I think it really has always depended on the script.

The actors act the way the script tells them to.

With a better script Kurt Russell could have probably done an even better job at it than he did.

I think Michael st. gerard could have done a good job with a really good script. ( He resembled Elvis more than any other actor that i've ever seen)

I think Johnny Depp with a good script could have done a good job 20 years ago.

[KPM]

I think it really has always depended on the script.

The actors act the way the script tells them to.

With a better script Kurt Russell could have probably done an even better job at it than he did.
I think Michael st. gerard could have done a good job with a really good script. ( He resembled Elvis more than any other actor that i've ever seen)

I think Johnny Depp with a good script could have done a good job 20 years ago.

Yes the script was very lightweight for the 79 tv movie ELVIS...and it would have helped Kurt I'm sure...but charisma is not in a script...if it were you could take the lamest b-movie actor and make him a KING.
Michael St Gerard did do a good job in the Elvis ABC series-it was well scripted to the point of great reviews...and he did look like Elvis quite a bit-his voice was slightly higher in register when he talked I thought, but he gave a good solid performance.

[Brian]

Yes the script was very lightweight for the 79 tv movie ELVIS...and it would have helped Kurt I'm sure...but charisma is not in a script...if it were you could take the lamest b-movie actor and make him a KING..

Kurt Russell has been one of my favorite actors for a long time he may not have the charisma of Elvis but to me he's solid.

The 1979 television movie had one of the best casts of actors that i've seen but it had some problems primarily in the script.

If those problems had been fixed the 1979 film would've been real good and we would have a good biopic on Elvis.

[Teddaking]

I heard actor Luke grimes is very interested in doing an elvis biopic and doing it the "Right" way he said.he's a big Elvis fan.

[Teddaking]

Luke Grimes

[poor boy]

Cop out? Not in the least-Kurt Russell did do a good job-but even with his fine performance in a flawed TV movie....his screen presence came no where near that of Elvis....everyone always says Elvis was one of a kind, charisma, talent, looks, personality........and I believe that is 100% true.
If you have a one of a kind individual it is extremely hard to find someone who can compete with that type of "uniqness"
So either we are all wrong and Elvis is not "one of a kind special" or it is going to be very very hard for anyone to compete and replicate that uniqness in a bio pic....Producers have to be considering this when thinking of investing 30-50 million on a bio-pic about Elvis.
So far Kurt Russell is the high point of anyone portraying Elvis-but Kurt himself has said it was hard to compete with someone who had that type of charisma...he said when watching an Elvis film the one thing that always made it worth watching was in fact-"ELVIS" who raised the films he was in just by being in them.

Like i said it doesnt matter who is being potrayed no one is going to be exactly the same as the person they are potraying. Its acting. Going with this logic no film would ever get made about anyone famous.

[piretos]

i believe that Michael St.Gerard was the only one that looked a lot like Elvis..Check the photo below





The resemblance is amazing

[Teddaking]

I think Luke's resemblance is pretty decent for a younger newer Hollywood actor.

[vivaelvis]

Nobody currently in Hollywood looks or resembles the true essence of Elvis Presley. That's the biggest problem with doing a theatrical biopic film. You have to convince the audience that the person they are watching the story told about is that very person. Another problem is the time factor. Most biopic stories range skip over non interesting periods in a person's life and usually run for about 1:45 to 2:45. But with Elvis' story, there are no non interesting periods to skip. You've got the childhood in Tupelo, the teenage years in Memphis, the Sun years, the 50's rock revolution period, the Army years, the Hollywood years and the Priscilla love story, the comeback, the Vegas years and the downside period. To cover all of that would run around 4 hours. No company is going to take that challenge on and fear it bores the audience. If you do a biopic on Elvis, it needs to focus on 1953-1958 and run for about 2 hours. A second could focus on 1968-73.

Another issue with doing a biopic film is cost for production. The 1979 ABC TV movie Elvis starring Kurt Russell, cost $2.1 million to produce. That's equivalent to around $12 million today. Lincoln, the biopic on Abraham Lincoln, cost $70 million to make. So a well written and produced Elvis biopic would cost that much or more to pull off. For one thing, you would need to sign up a top rated award winning director to begin with. Steven Spielberg directed Lincoln and he is said to be a big Elvis admirer. So maybe...

But back to the original topic. Since there's so much to cover and to be told, this is why I think a well in dept documentary would be the way to go. Less expensive to make and would be a long term success with DVD sales after the show aired.

[KPM]

Like i said it doesnt matter who is being potrayed no one is going to be exactly the same as the person they are potraying. Its acting. Going with this logic no film would ever get made about anyone famous.

Well once again I point out-NO one is like Elvis-that includes celebrities who have had bio pictures successfully done.
ELVIS is just a huge set of shoes to fill-and each person who has tried has not come close-the excitement, charisma, and talent that Elvis possessed-is never approached in any portrayal I have seen.
Yes its called acting-but you can not "act charismatic" it is an intangible that you have or do not.
There are a few individuals that are "Larger than life" Elvis was at the forefront of those.
I really do not see anyone who could fill those shoes-I love Johnny Depp great actor, versatile and has a charisma all his own...but I just am skeptical he could become-ELVIS.
Also, actors are not stupid-they know when something is out of reach-and I would bet that most name actors do not want to tackle the role of Elvis. But I am not voting against anyone-I would love to see someone try and bring Elvis's story to the big screen with a nice budget that used his music........and if it happens we will all see how it comes out.