Your thoughts on why JK's career didn't explode?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Jim Kelly
Chanpuru — 12 years ago(July 03, 2013 05:15 PM)
With the sad passing of Jim Kelly it's inevitable for his fans to not only be disappointed that there won't be a comeback, but also it's a time to reflect on the career he had. But I have a question
Undoubtedly 'Enter the Dragon' will be the highlight of his legacy with a sprinkling of other gems during the Blaxploitation era probably consigned to a genre fan following. I don't think even his most ardent fans would argue that he should have had the career of the A-list celebs, but I've always wondered why his career never took off more than it did. Even within the niche of Blaxploitation he's a name that many don't seem to know or consider a lesser talent. Even those who are familiar with actors like Pam Greer, Richard Roundtree, Fred Williamson etc would put Jim further down that list.and yet his charisma and screen presence combined with his athleticism in Enter the Dragon should have marked him out for something bigger (IMO).
So my question is why didn't it happen for him and further to that why didn't some form of comeback ever really take shape? -
life4all — 12 years ago(July 04, 2013 07:04 AM)
In the final analysis an actor needs a good, well written story/plot and a great director to really express his/her talent. I think in many ways Jim was denied this largely because Hollywood may not have known how to create the proper vehicle for him. Jim was after all unique in being at the time, one of the few recognizable African American Martial Artists in front of the camera. It would only be reasonable to say that his primary audience was young, African Americans and actors always fair better when they can garner a larger fan base. It is no secret that quality filmmaking is expensive and that the producers goal is to make a profit rather than promote individual talent (unless of course, that talent can be exploited for even greater profit). The last Jim Kelly film I saw was Hot Potato and in it I sensed Jims film career was winding down. If for example Jim had successfully played a Rocky Balboa type character there may have eventually been 5 more films to make as the series progressed.
So in retrospect, I think it safe to say that Jim was by default typecast as an African American Martial Artist (hero) in search of an action hero to portray. He was thus faced wi1908th the daunting task of creating his own marketable character for Hollywood to build upon. That is no easy thing to do. -
Chanpuru — 12 years ago(July 04, 2013 08:56 AM)
Good points Life4all and I agree with nearly all that you've said. Undoubtedly it was difficult for African American actors to crack Hollywood, but I'm more interested in why he didn't have a more fully fledged cult career. Let me explain it this way - check out Jim Kelly's IMDb page and note how many appearances he made of any kind on TV/Film from 1979 until this year (about 4). Then compare it to someone like Richard Roundtree (about 60!!). Now I realise this is an isolated example to illustrate my point but I think it's interesting that a similar path wasn't carved out by JK.
I'm not contesting that it was difficult for a black man to get a break in the 1970s movie industry, but Jim did that. It was even more difficult to make your mark and have even limited 'star power', but Jim had both. But then it all just stops. He didn't even become part of the whole 90s/00s revival retrospective (Tarantino/ Rodriguez) and that's what I don't fully understand. -
Chanpuru — 12 years ago(July 10, 2013 02:28 AM)
He made a lot of money with the few films he did and then he decided to coach tennis. Not everyone wants to gun it and be a 24/7 film star and he didn't need to.
Is that an assumption on your part or do you know that? I have my doubts. I doubt that he made masses of money just from a brief blaxploitation career 30 years ago. Secondly I wonder what the motivation was to become a tennis coach. Did he not like the acting business (in which case fair enough) or was it because he was frustrated with the opportunities and the path his career had taken by the end of the decade. Maybe he simply saw no future in it and decided to jump ship for something more reliable. He wouldn't be the first person to do that (there's a thread on former composer Marty Simon right now on this very subject!!).
If the latter is the case that just brings us back round in a circle to the original question "Why didn't JK's career explode?" -
life4all — 12 years ago(July 10, 2013 03:09 AM)
Chanpuru, I tend to agree with you because I don't know how much money Jim made from his films but the real money is made behind the camera (distribution, promotion, production, etc.). I would venture to guess that even in the 1970s-80s; $10 million could be completely liquidated in less than 10 years. The only way to curtail that is capital reinvestment (real estate, stocks, bonds, media, etc.). Fred Williamson for example, was apparently acutely aware of how easily money slips through one's fingers. He was constantly attempting to build his own production company (Po'Boy Productions) and find that elusive project to produce. In 1976, he wrote, directed, produced and starred in Adios Amigo.
It is intrinsically much harder to keep money than it is to make it. -
Akzidenz_Grotesk — 12 years ago(July 20, 2013 06:21 PM)
"10 million could be completely liquidated in 10 years."
Oh, yes yes, yes (sarcasm) because Kelly was a black man and crack and whores use up money really fast. No black man can manage to put money away in a bank account and live frugally off the interest, right? Kelly just decided to retire from acting and live his life another way, away from stardom. You two guys make me sick that you can't accept that. -
Cognoscente — 2 weeks ago(March 18, 2026 06:36 AM)
Bruce wanted Jim to co-star with him in his next film after Enter the Dragon. A Japanese cinematographer corroborated this in a Japanese magazine circa the '70s.
Other people wanted to cash in on Bruce's idea. For example, there was an interracial movie called The Dynamite Brothers. It was made after Bruce died, and it employed the stuntmen whom Bruce wanted to take with him to Hollywood.
More about the situation:
https://popcultmaster.substack.com/p/the-taboo-connection -
blue_smoke — 12 years ago(August 16, 2013 03:37 PM)
His acting was lousy. Chuck Norris' acting is lousy, but Jim Kelly's was even worse. Even so I still think he could have been bigger than he was, if he had done movies with little dialogue and they focused on action sequences instead.
-
Chanpuru — 12 years ago(September 03, 2013 04:11 PM)
I think saying that his acting was "lousy" is a bit strong.. and even if he wasn't A list it certainly doesn't explain his inability to have a B list career like many of his contemporaries did. I'm not asking why he din't win an Oscar or do Hamlet with the RSC.
-
filmman3000 — 12 years ago(December 14, 2013 02:40 AM)
Oh wow I always thought Chuck Norris was the first American martial art actor. In fact Jim Kelly did Black Belt Jones a few years before Norris did his solo debut.
Obviously Chuck had the color advantage, but I am sure that didn't stop Kelly. Also, the budget for a Norris film didn't start being serious until Kelly faded away from the movie scene. So it's hard to know or make a difference. Also Norris was always smart with his acting career when the movies went down he went for TV, where he had a big success.
Also the quality between the directors Chuck and Jim is there. Chuck had Ted Post, and Steve Carver. I am sure if Kelly had a quality director after Black Belt Jones he would have been ok.
I think he mentioned at one point that he was fed up with the B-movies and quit. Wish he had done more films with more masters of the craft who would have done successful films, because that would have kept him from getting away. Love his B-movies tho.
Maybe his Tennis career got in the way, we will never know. -
FilmKoala — 10 years ago(December 19, 2015 08:20 PM)
I feel like he didn't achieve greater success because unlike fellow blaxploitation stars like Fred Williamson or Pam Grier, it was really easy to pigeonhole him as "That black kung-fu guy". Kelly wasn't what I would call a sensational actor either, so I think people had a harder time envisioning him playing a mobster or a club owner or a cowboy or anyone other than a martial artist. He was the kung-fu hero, Black Belt Jones, for pretty much his entire career.
With that said my life wouldn't be the same without Black Belt Jones and Three the Hard Way so that kung-fu hero was good enough for me. -
Woodyanders — 2 weeks ago(March 18, 2026 02:49 PM)
I think the main reason Jim Kelly wasn't a huge star is because he didn't possess the necessary range to play a variety of characters. While Kelly was perfectly acceptable as a likeable hero, he alas lacked the necessary hard edge to be convincing as either a tough detective or mean villain.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.