MovieChat Forums > Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) Discussion > It needed to lose Buster, Cabel and Migh...

It needed to lose Buster, Cabel and Mighty J. and gain James Belushi

posted 13 years ago by thgl619
12 replies | jump to latest

They should've have just waited for James Belushi and then they could have done the film with the band, him and Dan.

And they should've cut the whole Queen Mousette thing.
Not only was Queen Mousette a stupid character that felt out of place, but Paul Shaffer's character was also obnoxious.

And don´t get me started on the transforming rats, voodoo thing...

The whole music sequences and that amazing car crash were two of the great moments of this movie.
Along with Dan, Jeff Morris, Frank Oz, the band and the whole cast of music legends (some reprising their roles).

[–] TunnelKeeperOfDoom 13 years ago

I really like Mighty Mac, Buster and Cabel alot! They were each unique and original.

http://Cinemarathon.Podbean.com

http://watchmoviedopodcast.com

[–] tom_42 12 years ago

At the time Jim had to choose the movie or the TV series (movie was filmed during Pilot season, which was the only time they could get all the music acts together)

Jim choose the TV series over the movie and since the TV series lasted 182 episodes with 8 seasons while the movie was horrible he made the right decision

[–] michaelward15 11 years ago

I think your thinking of According to Jim which started in 2001, but the TV show that conflicted with filming Blues Brothers 2000 was the short-lived Total Security.

[–] Lokisgodhi 12 years ago

Why? That untalented hack would have made it even worse.

[–] jc-cooper-627-542314 12 years ago

I disagree sort of. Keep Mighty Mack, but give him a real personality. He should of been a hard ass like belushi was in the first one. Cab can stay, he was the only one actually acting but eliminate the flying throught the tent scene (stupid) should of been a come to realization by a beam of light ala belushi from the first one. Toss Buster ignorant to have a kid in it in the first place. Why not have also a monkey, and a dog? You were trying to make it stupid once you added a kid. Music was good but why not have a song with James Brown in the Revival? Ackroyd was way way way out of character. The stupid leaning when a car drove by at the beginning. It was way too jovial, way too cartoon like. of all the great OST people in the world you get Paul Schafer. Rant over, please continue to go about your day.

[–] jefgg 11 years ago

It took three men to try to replace John Belushi.

[–] Chicago_Jake 11 years ago

Buster was awesome. And I say this as someone who HATES HATES HATES kids, in real life, and in movies. But the kid who played Buster was really, really good. Better than Aykroyd, better than Goodman, better than all of them. He was subtle and skilled and awesome.

I wonder what ever happened to the actor? I would have predicted great things from him.

[–] jimmycentauri 11 years ago

A lot of people put this film down. Lots of great cameos from the old movie and from music legends.

I didn't like John Goodman when he went on SNL & tried to be a Blues Brother. Sadly, that started the problem. Goodman replacing Belushi - there's your problem. (I like Goodman in anything else.)

If you really watch the film, Elwood finding & perusing Cab was cool. What needed to happen is little Buster, played by J. Evan Bonifant, needed a better relationship/bonding story with Elwood. (Then the part of Jake being gone would have smoothed out easier.) I always said when Buster breaks out the harmonica (it's out of nowhere) - Elwood should have given him a harp before. Like "This is the first cool thing my brother (or Curtis) gave me, etc." Then we would assume he started practicing & was a natural. Again, that could have bonded them together. J. Evan Bonifant won me over with his dance moves during "Respect." He shows a lot of talent in the film and it could have made the film better.

I'm told about 3 hours of film was on the cutting room floor, and that could have happened somewhat. Anyway, having "Mac" REPLACE "Jake" was the problem. Letting Elwood mentor Buster, was NOT the problem if you watch & think about what I just wrote.

Only my opinion... but it does make sense.

[–] TheLordofTheHarvest 10 years ago

I agree some things needed to be changed or dropped all together but others should have stayed. I loved Goodman in this as I did Joe Morton (who actually was a good singer when it came down to it. The kid I'm 50/50 on. He's a little turd at first and is kind of annoying but when it gets halfway he gets awesome. Maybe making his character less of a terd at first would help.

Here's what I would do with the things I keep:

-Have an arc about Elwood coming to grips with Jake's death and moving on. He had a little bit of moments at the start where he is sad but it's instantly gone once he finds out about Morton's character and it's like it never happened. That instant ignorance of it always has bothered me. Making that the main point of the story would be a good idea. Have Elwood come to grips that Jake is gone by letting Mac become his new partner and he adds an edge to the group that Jake never brought. Same with Buster, he becomes the son he never legitly had.

-Make Goodman his own unique character instead of trying to be John Belushi. He has his bare smart-ass humor that he had on Roseanne but when it came to performing he tried way to hard to be like John. He should have just been himself and focus on a different kind of performing.

-Keep Morton but make his conversion like Belishi's was in the original. Still have him coming on board near the end if not in the middle of the film.

Here's some changes I would do completely:

-No Voodoo arc. That was so ridiculous and took all the legitimacy of the film away. New Orleans is awesome and a great way to connect it with the blues but that way was just flat out stupid. Maybe keeping the New Orleans route would be smart (have them headline a festivel there for a lot of $ or something different all together,) but the queen moressete thing should have gone.

-If not New Orleans have them go to NYC or somewhere to be on TV or something. The performance would be second to Elwood's main arc in my version but it would be important too.

-No battle versus the all star band. That was a bad decision because I felt the BB band lost to them quite easily in the final battle.

-No Erykah Badu period. Including her was foolish and against every other artist they had, she was so out of place.

-Have Paul Shaffer actually join the BB band. He was originally a main part of the band in the 70's that would make sense. Maybe even have another accomplished artist join the band as well. Johnny Lang was a great blues guitarist, he would have been perfect for BB band in this movie to do some more rockish tunes for Goodman's stylings.

-Lessen the amount of people after them. You have the cops, nuns, russian mob, even some rednecks after them. I would at least merge the cops and the nuns. I liked the russians, and I loved Darrell Hammond as the redneck. He was hilarious so I would hate to leave them off.

I'd think by changing at least those things it would have been a ton better already. It didn't feel like it was ready to go. Too clumped and rushed among other things. The plot wasn't 100% fireproof either. It was many years too late but it could have worked if Landis did his job.

[–] Queen_of_Light 9 years ago

It NEEDED John Belushi. That's what hurt this film more than anything. They tried emulating him, but it didn't work. Jim wouldn't have been any better.

If only this film had been made while John was still alive.

[–] zorrorosso 9 years ago

Yes, but here is were the 16yo me never got it: everybody knew John Belushi was dead, when the movie was released it was even published a picture of them posing on a tombstone (probably from the Russian funeral set) and the article below telling how impossible would be to replace Jake character, yet at the theater a group of people storm out disappointed when Frank Oz character tells Elwood his brother was dead, I really didn't get how they could say the movie was bad too, since they didn't watch it.

Looking back all these years, I would say that stuff like TBTBB shown how good a BB show would be even without a phisical Jake or "other brothers", but then again, stuff like BB2k is not one of those shows.

[–] Utpe 9 years ago

I agree about Jim Belushi and axing the Buster character, but, that's about it. Simply replace John Goodman with Jim and this film might have been somewhat successful.

Unfortunately, at the time, Goodman had much more star power and clout in the Hollywood industry. He was just coming off of the long-running T.V. show Roseanne one year prior and Aykroyd probably wanted him to take the place of John Belushi since he kind of resembled him in a way.

I think the Cabel Chamberlain character was fine as a semi-replacement for Curtis since the actor had passed away in 1994.

As for the Buster character: I can pretty much say, Buster almost single-handedly ruined this movie for me. I have absolutely no idea why they had to introduce a kid into a Blues Brothers film. It was originally about two brothers on a mission from God to raise money by putting the band back together. If they had stuck to the original premise of the first film, then I bet Blues Brothers 2000 would not be remembered as it is today.

When I originally went to see this in theaters back on February 6th, 1998, I couldn't believe what I had just seen. It really was a disappointment. It ranked #4 on opening weekend and only grossed $14,051,384 domestically without a worldwide release. Even its predecessor had a domestic gross of $57,229,890 and that was back in 1980!

The only decent thing that came out of this film was the phenomenal soundtrack. They really knocked it out of the park when it came to the music in this movie, so much so that I purchased the CD back in 1998.

Overall, I've only seen it twice in my entire lifetime. I did purchase the Blu-ray copy in the $5.00 bin at my local Walmart. That should tell you how bad the film really is.