Is Chiklis Forgiven? - Wired (1989) Discussion

[–] astaroth13 19 years ago

I don't know if they have worked together, I doubt if but that has more to do with Chiklis being a relative nobody until the Shield came along. Seeing as how the Belushi bio was his FIRST movie I'm sure he's not held personally to blame for this.
However Akroyd and Belushi no longer have the chops to hold anything against Chiklis. His career is booming where their careers are in their death throes. I'm sure they'd jump at the chance for a Shield cameo or a spot on Fantastic 4 the sequel.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nathanbaker10 18 years ago

Ehem... According to Jim is one of the worst/cheapest sitcoms ever (and I'm not the only one who thinks so - read the paper, EW, you'll see plenty of bad reviews) and Ackroyd is doing.. Britney Spears movies? Playing doofy-dads? I like Ackroyd still, but Jim is crap.

Dr. Simon Tam: River! River? Are you okay?
River Tam: I swallowed a bug.

reply

[–] jbs016 18 years ago

Whatever you say, Dan.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] krugin72 19 years ago

Of course he is, its not his fault some director made a movie exactly like the book.Chiklis was amazing in his portrayal and I'm sure if the movie was made in different context and showed john in a good light Danny and Jim and thier families wouldn't have a problem.Hey at least chicky got a shot at playing his hero after all when was the last time you were asked to do that.

reply

[–] gonzostyles 19 years ago

yeah the movie itself sucked but chiklis gave a heads on brilliant performance. Yeah it showed johns life in a poor light but a reality check... IT WAS!!! How do you paint someone in a good light when they had so much promise and was loved by so many but abused himself to death and died at 33. By all accounts John was a kind and loving person when not high. But when he was high he was belligerent, violent, and all around incorragible. Thats why his career was on the downpath in his last years, he hadnt had a hit since blues bros and animal house and was making bombs. He wasn't someone who used on the side and didnt let it affect his work and died a tragic death, he was on mission and it lead to his tragic death.

Sure no one wants to remember the bad when someone dies, you never hear anyone say how horrible a person was after they are dead because all is somehow forgiven cause they're gone now. John wasn't a horrible man but he didn't lead a good life, he was selfish and extremely flawed.

The film itself was very poorly done, the idea to make it like a "scrooge" type trip with a guardian angel was the death blow, it turned it into a mockumentary basically. The production is very poor, it looks like a made for tv type film, very poorly directed, edited, everything. The actors just didnt fit for the most part and the film just flops around too much. The autopsy scene was the worst, just a bad film. BUT chiklis makes it worth it for me to atleast watch it once in a while.

reply

[–] el1sdf 18 years ago

by - bruisemeister (Sun Jul 3 2005 21:21:35 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has he ever worked with Ackroyd or Jim Belushi since. I was just wondering how long they will hold a grudge.

Endquote

LOL - so would I, but Vic Mackey makes up for it. They're probably both kissing his a** for a part now.

reply

[–] SHB_73 18 years ago

I don't understand why they would be mad at him personally, Chiklis has said in interviews at the time he was a struggling actor in New York so you take any job you get. Also he is a big admirer of Belushi and this is what he told his brother Jim.

reply

[–] lazur-2 18 years ago

Is -Aykroyd- forgiven? If it wasn't for Dan and his cronies stonewalling any rights to necessary bits, (and lord-knows-who not participating due to being scared of offending him), this might have been a decent, or even quite good, film. But he/they just didn't want -any- film made. Aykroyd could have traded his cooperation for a lot of control over how this movie turned out, but he wanted NO movie. I suspect he would have had his own version out by now, and figured that his competitors would never get anything done with the resistance he put in place. Well, apparently they were too far in financially to quit, and filled in the blanks with crap. Are you happy, Dan? (Apparently I'm in the minority, but I don't think the next generation Blues Brothers are exactly a tribute to John. For them to actually open a Stones show in Chicago is just as low as anything in 'Wired')

reply

[–] PeteStud 18 years ago

its obvious Chiklis is a Belushi fan..he imitates him so well. a shame the movie didnt have less fat.

reply

[–] kikigirl_wolf 18 years ago

----maybe instead of ragging on who's career is in the toilet maybe the big question here why were so many people protecting john's drug abuse?hmmm?? maybe they're protecting they're own addiction to drugs..

reply

[–] Loz-pops 18 years ago

I dont think that Dan or Jim will have anything against Michael Chiklis, as jobbing actors I'm sure they would have taken any tv role/low budget movie to tide them over.
John Belushi was an original and its very hard to portray a unique person like that.
I personally think they could have waited a few years more, put more money into it, kept on at the family and friends every now and then, and you could have had a fab movie with Jim Belushi (perhaps, because John looked older than 33 when he died because of his lifestyle) playing his brother in a movie that the family and friends had all agreed on, say 10/12 years after his death.

Even now the movie could be remade and introduce John Belushi's comedy to a whole new generation. They made it too soon and disregarded the family and friends who loved him no matter what.

reply

[–] rams_lakers 17 years ago

Even now the movie could be remade and introduce John Belushi's comedy to a whole new generation.

Why can't this whole new generation you speak of watch Comedy Central for Belushi's SNL bits or AMC for Blues Brothers? That is absolutely no excuse to remake films when these ignorant 14-25 year olds can rent the originals from Netflix and Blockbuster.

reply

[–] terrywatt69 15 years ago

Well, I suppose Chiklis was forgiven by Hollywood, in the sense that he's went on to do other things. Think what so many in the LA film industry were pissed off about regarding Wired was the implication that elements and people within the film industry were a bunch of drug addicts themselves who looked at Belushi as little more than a meal ticket. Wired shines a light on the entertainment industry that isn't a very flattering one.
Myself, I think the performance by Chiklis was a good one, even though I didn't care for the movie overall.

reply

[–] trekkie313 13 years ago

It's obvious, your dickless!

"Listen, do you smell something?"
Ray Stanz-Ghostbusters

reply

[–] FatKidWithGlasses 17 years ago

I saw Chiklis on "Dinner for Five" talking about the huge backlash he experienced after this movie came out. He said it was very hard for him to get any work for a while. I admit that as a HUGE Belushi fan, I was irked by this movie and didn't like Chiklis very much after seeing it (maybe because I was jealous I didn't get the part), but I don't blame him for how bad the film was. In that interview, Chicky also talked about how he had a meeting with Burt Reynolds a little while after WIred went away and he thought BR was going to deck him, but instead he shook his hand and told him he admired his braveness. As for Dan Ackroyd and Jim Belushi, I'm sure there has been enough water under the bridge for them to have let it go.

Everything is everything... and it's ALL good!

reply

[–] JupiterStorm 16 years ago

Portrayed John in a bad light? I have zero empathy for one who dies of a drug overdose...

"Starting tonight; people will die. I'm a man of my word..."
sLaughter is the best medicine

reply

[–] pleasure-friendly 16 years ago

Jim Belushi has forgiven Michael Chiklis. He and Michael Chiklis met up by accident and Jim Belushi rushed out all pissed and disgusted. To tell you the truth Michael purposely went up to him and as Belushi told him he was at the wrong table pissed and frusterated and just got up and left, Michael Chiklis in tears begged him for forgiveness and told his plea about explaining he doesn't know Jim and why he did it and John Belushi was one of his heroes growing up. He never knew anything about John Belushi's personal life and was sorry for the pain it caused him and his family and he didn't mean no harm. Jim Belushi then went up to Michael Chiklis who was tearing up they both hugged and Jim told him Let's just let this go.
That was a weight off both of their shoulders. Yes, Jim Belushi had forgiven Michael Chiklis, but as for that *beep* Dan Aykroyd who doesn't even have a career himself anymore, who cares?

reply

[–] saraannepotter 16 years ago

I'll back that; the interview was in the November/December 1999 issue of Cigar Aficionado. Sounds like this is water long under the bridge.

reply

[–] trelard 15 years ago

I agree. Personally I never saw Chiklis as being anything close to being at fault. I don't care what ANYONE says, if you are an actor who has been offered a lead role in their very first "major" movie then you are going to take that role. Period.

Before anyone comes in with "Well I wouldn't compromise my art" I'll say this.. You are a lying bastard. If you thought you could get famous by being in a big movie, you'd do it.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 13 years ago

You can't blame him; he was a struggling actor at the time who just landed a very big role... It would be different if you took the same script and someone like Jack Black accepted it today, Black has his pick of projects so if he chose something like this then it would mean he had no problems with the material...

Chiklis may well have had reservations, but I'm guessing that he also didn't have a whole lot of options to fall back on.

This is where the magic happens... and by "magic", I mean nothing.

reply

[–] imnotjohncandy 12 years ago

No one associated with this movie is okay.

reply

[–] kenburke0627 8 years ago

Considering how Chiklis did nothing that calls for forgiveness, I don't see why he should be "forgiven" to start with. Sorry, Hollywood, starring in a film that rubs everyone the wrong way is not a crime.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

About Dan i don't know. There's probably still bad blood there.

Now with Jim. This photo explains it all.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BYGE90/jim-belushi-michael-chiklis-harlem-globetrotters-game-held-at-the-BYGE90.jpg

reply