Frankly, I don't blame him, as the movie industry isn't worthy of a star of his calibre anymore. Too bad he hadn't gone out with a decent film like The Russian House. This film was no way to end one's film career.
shareSir Sean was not happy with this movie and frankly he feels he is not getting the right scripts. So thats Connery and Hackman who have been MIA since 2004.
Its that man again!!
[deleted]
Connery and Hackman who have been MIA since 2004.
Conery has been in alot of the Scottish papers recently (with the ellections for our parliment and him being a strong SNP supporter) and he looks like his mind is made up and thats him with acting!
Also he is really starting to show his age now!
superturbo,
They were both in "A Bridge Too Far", but not in any scenes together, IIRC.
"She was a long, tall, authentic blonde. I loved her as much as I loved my .45..."
Connery and the director did not like each other and reportedly at one point nearly got into a fistfight. Connery hasn't worked since and the director never wanted to direct again.
I don't apologize. I'm sorry, but that's how I am. - Homer Simpson
If you look at everyone else who was a lead or support in this movie, they all lost their careers. Most of these actors had consistent roles until this flopped, then they all kinda of went into a tail spin, it's funny really.
shareI'm not really following your logic here. While none outside Connery were that hot going into this film, going to any of the mains IMDB pages it sees like Townsend and Roxburgh are the only two to have gotten a bit of a harder time following this movie.
You'd be right in saying this didn't make any of their careers to say not that major actors still getting a bunch of not major roles ten years later is hardly a "tail spin".
Communities left for being out of touch: Gamefaqs, Home Theater Forum
Also left a group on Flickr
None of them were really big names going into this movie.
Isn't Naseeruddin Shah the Bollywood version of Robert Di Nero or something? Townsend and Curran tell a good story on the DVD commentary where they went into a Indian restaurant in Prague while filming, and didn't have to pay for their meal or something as the staff where gobsmacked that this Bollywood film legend was eating in their restaurant.
Tony Curran I knew of through Scottish movies and tv shows, and until this had only had bit parts in movies like Gladiator, Blade and Pearl Harbour.... he continues to appear in pretty big movies up to today, bit its still bit parts here and there..... so his career has not really been effected.
Flemyng is pretty much the same.
Stuart Townsend career has never really taken off, and suspect being binned on the day filming started for Lord of the Rings started probably did more damage to his career than LoEG did.
Roxburgh career was just starting to take off prior to this movie, but could be argued that this and then following it up with another major flop in Van Helsing could have effected his career.
All in all, I would not really say this movie killed anyones careers, as none of them were "hot" property to start with.......
All in all, I would not really say this movie killed anyones careers, as none of them were "hot" property to start with.......
Interestingly, Connery was originally supposed to play the role of Bond' housekeeper "Kincade" in Skyfall! :)
The original Bond sharing the screen with the new Bond 50 years later...
I know the filmmakers considered Connery for Skyfall but I don't know if they went as far as asking him before they decided against it.
I doubt he would've said yes, anyway. He didn't even say yes to the idea of joining the other 5 Bond actors on stage at the February 2013 Oscars. I don't know the full details of his feud with the producers but whatever bad blood there was in the 1960s it's definitely stuck now :(
=========================
A pretty girl's guide to London: http://youtu.be/RLFUi4EWatQ
If he turned down Indiana Jones, then I think Skyfall had even less chance of getting him.
TBH he makes very little in terms of appearances these days, and from what we have seen, looks a shadow of his former self (there was photos of him out in New York last year and he just looked like any regular 80 something guy going out to the shops).
[deleted]
Well given what board you are on, you are either pretty naive or ignorant to not know such changes happen all the time in adaptions. It's the lay of land. Hell even some of the very characters in this movie had had that treatment long before.
But even still I've drawn a line in other threads, but simply put this movie, it's remake and the seemingly dead now tv project all fall into the same pitfalls.
It's basic premise is a nerdy one at that. It's going to alienate people who aren't that smart right off the bat. The similar current projects tried mainly to keep it smaller on the onset no doubt for that very reason. Too much and you are going to limit your potential audience.
Now that being said, if we already have a smaller audience to work with period, you don't want something of a base breaker set up to your premise. Which quite frankly is what Alan Moore's original story does. it's a deconstruction crossover that he clearly aims more at telling a point and being an encyclopedia. This type of thing would kill a whole lot of the people who went into it looking for a big crossover fun.
And then what do you have left supporting this movie? Alan Moore fans? That about it? While such an audience is more then enough to support his comic book line, i'm not even going to take serious consideration it's enough for a movie franchise with massive special effects. The movie's got to appeal to more than that. So changing things to make it more appealing are kinda the go-to-thing.
For more food for thought look at Watchmen. A name that while comic fans get excited for I doubt has much more presence outside of it, suffered a huge decline in theaters. Which more then likely is due to fans of super heroes not liking the kind of story the movie (and comic they had no idea about) wanted to tell. Marvel has made a lot of money telling edited stories of their comics into movies, but most of them aren't the same type of stories Alan Moore tried/tries to tell in Watchmen or League.
To me the big question will come if the person in charge of this wants to honor much of what the comics did for a storyline or not. If they are they might offer more tidbits but i'm just not able to seriously suggest most people today are going to pick up Alan Moore's graphic novel and say "I think this is good enough for a movie without significant changes".
And even if i'm wrong in that, i feel certain you can mark my words, theater attendance would drop significantly in one week too. You sell people on "this is a massive crossover of a bunch of old famous book characters" and you deliver Alan Moore's LoEG, i hope you are prepared for a lot of disappointment in people that aren't devotees of Moore.
"Worthy of a star of his caliber" lmfao Dafuq?
Don't like what I'm saying? Then call 1800-Ima-CryBaby and ask for Waaaaaa.
I guess I need to look up the remake date of "The Avengers" with Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes! That was about as bad as any movie he made! It was hard to get through; it was so corny! I was very disappointed!
- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/ - - Sci-fi, Batman, and E:FC
- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/ - - Homage to DW & B7
Its sad that this is his last one, but I am glad I saw his final one in theaters.
Lose the Game!!!!!!!