



RileyTaker wrote:I think the only person qualified to play the Undertaker is the Undertaker himself, Mark Calaway. Anyone else would not present the character in the way that he needs to be presented. Besides, why make an Undertaker movie without having the true Undertaker in it? That would make no sense.









Veritas wrote:I think if they pitch the movie as a fictionalized version of what could have been? Sure. But as IX has said...UT has a very firmly established backstory with Kane. You need to be careful of what you do with it.




Jamesdude wrote:After watching Mortal Kombat.........
Christopher Lambert would make a good Undertaker also. His whisper like voice would be perfect for Taker's personality



Insanity_X wrote:I'm going to hope for this being complete shit. I mean how in the hell are they going to explain all of the characters in UT's past without it being as convoluted as hell? there's no way in hell that UT's mum lived long enough to ***k Paul Bearer (I believe that's the relation), unless PB was alive then (and therefore Kane was alive in the 1800s too). and then there's the whole urn debarcle...
yeah, WWE shjould stay the hell away from UT's backstory unless they want to confuse everybody and contradict themselves.





Veritas wrote:Well, that depends on who contractually owns the story. I don't think any of us can comment on who owns it. We can only offer conjecture.




Jamesdude wrote:After watching Mortal Kombat.........
Christopher Lambert would make a good Undertaker also. His whisper like voice would be perfect for Taker's personality










Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest