enhanced by
Bookmark:
Like Big Tam really needs the money...
He might have taken the role if it was a proper pay cheque.
He might have accepted the role if offered a pay cheque.
I'm glad that Ian McKellen did it. Sean Connery isn't as good an actor and he would have been silly and cartoonish playing Gandalf.
He should have said YESHHH :)
He should have said YESHHH
And exactly why would he need the extra cash? He gets enough money from having been the best ever James Bond. http://00706.com
I agree with Sean that I think the story is complicated and does not appeal to me,neverless it was some gaff.
Good to hear he rejected the part because he didn't like the sound of it despite the massive paycheck.
I'm sure if he does have regrets it will be because he turned down one of the most important parts in one of the most important films ever made. Not, as the News article implies, because he lost out on the money.
Makes you wonder if he has lost the plot elsewhere.Nice to see that an actor (I K )can be successful in a movie instead of a celebrity
Ian McKellen was superb as Gandalf ......... brilliant casting and acting. I, personally, can't imagine anyone else who could have played the part as well as he did.
Peter Jackson should direct The Hobbit ........ he was the mastermind behind the success of LOTR.
It's on par with choosing a 8 iron instead of a 7 iron at the last at St Andres!
Thank goodness he did turn it down - anyone remember "Darby O'Gill and the Little People"?
Maybe Shir Shean can get the digital wizards of Weta to create him his Scottish abode, (that he promised he'd move into if the 1997 referendum got us the Scottish Parliament), in time for his next round of telling us Scots how to vote in the upcoming elections?
Connery is such a deuchbag. Of course he doesn't understand the books. I'm glad he didn't take the role. He would have ruined the spectacular job that Ian McLellan did. Connery is not only washed up...he's always been a s**** actor
I don't think Harrison Ford's superstardom depended on Indiana Jones. He had been in Bladerunner & a little thing called Star Wars.
Al Pacino would have made a great Elliot Ness & Michelle Pfeiffer could arguably have made a better Clarice but I think the others are better as they were.
Sir Sean revealed to this reporter that the reason he turned doon the part was," That Jackson midget winna let me wear a kilt for the part. I certainly did not want to wear a goonie and look like Casper the friendly ghost. Och Aye"
Await for further developments soon. Sir Sean is not done with this episode of kilts,goonies and that KIWI midget called Jackson..
Sir Sean needs a more forward thinking agent, me thinks.
'Someone' came to the conclusion that Sir Sean "did not understand the complicated plot of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy masterpiece." However, knowing the canny Scot's penchant for fully understanding the contractural miasma of Hollywood, I find it a stretch that Sir Sean couldn't grasp the Lord of the Rings plot.
I suspect there was something else that soured the pudding for Sir Sean with the movie deal and he chose to turn his back on it.
I simply cannot picture Sir Sean Connery as Gandalf. There is a gauntness about the character that Sir Ian McKellen has which, strictly because of his rounder face, Connery lacks.
The lack of an actor with Connery's high visibility actually aided the film. The New Line folks were not thinking well. What sold the films initially was not the actors, it was the famous Tolkien story itself. That all the actors had solid biographies, yet were not conventional "stars", was the secret behind the success. By weighting the film too heavily toward one or another character by having it played by a superstar, would have distorted the balance of the story-telling. Is Gandalf the "star" of the tale? Yes and no. Is Frodo? Yes and no. Is Aragorn? Yes and no. Giving any "star" actor one of those roles would have made the answer to one of those queries a solid "yes" and thus altered the effectiveness of the story.
As for Connery's inability to understand the role, well, that's a shame, but can you imagine an actor who doesn't understand what his character is about taking on such a role? It could be made to work on screen, but it would be a director's and editor's nightmare.
The films came out well, marred only by one episode in which a cheesy anachronistic pseudo-skateboarding trick by Legolas intruded. Jackson lost his touch in that one scene. I actually groaned when I first saw it.
The films had the lovely effect of making New Zealand my destination of choice, should I ever have a chance to travel again. And "Whale Rider" only heightened this wish.
Sean Connery's fame will endure, even if he felt that he could not play Gandalf in LOTR for the reasons allegedly stated. Not every actor is necessarily suitable for a role merely because a director, casting director or someone else believes that she or he would be a good prospect.
Sometimes, it is necessary to take a crucial step back and turn down a role even at the risk of allowing someone else to step in and manage to make the role his or her own that might, if he or she is a relative unknown now, catapult him or her to superstardom, as in the case of Eddie Murphy who shot to fame in Beverly Hills Cop after two more famous actors rejected the Foley role.
Eastwood would not have played the role of Foley in the same way that Murphy did, yet the latter did bring his own personality into Foley in a way that made the character believable, charismatic and downright funny. Would the movie have led to two sequels if Eastwood had played the role? Maybe yes, maybe no; in any case, Eastwood has had his slice of cop fame by playing Dirty Harry in more than one flick.
These actors are all millionaires who have had their good flicks. For all we know, the films mentioned in the list could have been "OK" if the original actors offered the roles had accepted them, but those who eventually stepped into their shoes made them blockbusters, no doubt about it.
Those others have had their own blockbusters, so there is no shame in turning down a role for whatever reason, even in circumstances beyond their control, such as Tom Selleck allegedly being unable to obtain release from his "Magnum: P.I." T.V. contract to play Indiana Jones.
Undoubtedly, if one examines the situation from a converse viewpoint, there are probably the odd few flicks which were disastrous because the actors that appeared in them made a complete pig's breakfast of them. Who knows what could have happened to those films if some other actors had appeared in them
What a narrow escape! Ian McKellen is a much better actor than Sean Connery, who only ever plays himself.
I don't think the matter of the millions is the issue here.I believe that the money that is payed to Actors is outrageous. Perhaps he felt he did not want to play the part of Gandalf. I'm sure he has his reasons. People should respect his decision. Also I learned from his website, that he has not been feeling well. Hopefully, he is on the mend.
Sir Sean Connery is a wonderful actor, but i think he wouldn't have done justice to the role like Sir Ian McKellen did. Moreover, having that prominent of a figure may have tainted such a wonderful film. It would have been hard to seperate Connery from the character. The role unquestionably belongs to McKellen.
That is fine.
How did it cost him if he never accepted the role in the first place?
PROUD TO HAVE COME FROM THE MACDOUGLL CLANN.H. LIVE FREE OR DIE
It is so disgusting when actors can earn this level of cash- why on earth don't we all go on the dole and accept benefits since all our employers are taking the piss. Sean Connery has never worked in his life and just because he has the looks and build, he can command a huge salary like that. It is sick beyond belief. Paul McCartney who has real talent, yes he really does have exceptional talent has earned his money as has Bill Gates (give him credit!!) as did all the Beatles except Ringo who is possibly the only one I would share a drink with and enjoy doing it (Ringo knows what I mean). Sean Connery does not have anything other than sex appeal ;is that worth £225M?
I can't quite see Sir Sean as Gandalf ("My name ish Gandalf, Gandalf the Grey"), but it's interesting to consider it.
The thought of Stallone as Axel Foley beggars belief... I think it was more the Nick Nolte part they turned down.
REF SIR SEAN CONNERY TURNING DOWN AN ACTING ROLL..............IF THAT IS WANTS TO DO,,GET OF HIS BACK........ MONEY IS NOT A PROBLEM....ASK HIM TO DO OUT FOR NOWT.FOR A GOOD CAUSE... HE WOULD DO IT...LOW KEY
What a numpty!
JUst shows what a Numpty the worlds greatest Scotsman is. What a pity our politicians are still ars* licking him.
Why no comments today? Have Bumf, A.J.et al spoilt it for everyone else?
Thank God Sean Connery turned down the role, given his confession of "not understanding" JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I also shudder at the thought of a Gandalf with Connery's distinctive accent.
"Sir Sean turned the offer down as he did not understand the complicated plot of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy masterpiece."
Oh bother! A Hollywood brat rejecting *fantasy* literature--a unique and inspiring classic at that!
An amazing variety of richly detailed places and races, each with its distinctive geography, culture, language, and history. A just war within the magical imaginary world of Middle-earth. An epic saga of heroic struggle and hopeless odds against evil, with the knowledge that victory can be achieved only at great cost. And not for the sake of conquest or gain, but one of firm renunciation. The powerful and corruptive ring MUST be destroyed. It is pure evil.
A *timeless* message in a world marked by destructive wars and horrifying abuses of power. Evil doesn't just sit idle behind its self-proclaimed borders, but left unchecked it continues to spread ever reaching to destroy all that is good and beautiful. Courage, strength, and victory can come from the most unlikely, the smallest, the weakest, or most humble among us.
So what's to understand about Tolkien’s fantasy world? What's so complicated? Just enjoy an enchanting and exhilarating ride from the Shire to Mordor. Sigh... Sir Sean most likely would have made a delightful Gandalf. On the other hand, perhaps Mr. Jackson is correct. Sean Connery's fame and persona (unbridled arrogance) might very well have eclipsed the role. We can only imagine.
Branda
ayah, too bad. no other news?
The names Gandalf...£00 Gandalf.
Does Sir Sean look bothered? Does his face look bothered?
Somehow I dont think Mr Connery needs the money.In a long and succesful career I dont think he will lose much sleep over this.
He could have been right, personally I thought the other guy was totally brilliant. I do not think that Tom Cruise would have fitted in too well either.
I give up, never liked moderators anyway.
whether or not it is clear to us,no doubt the universe unfolded as it should.
like Sean C I don't understand it much either
however it's scary to think of the money being talked of here for a bit of acting in a movie which was always highly likely to have a commercial appeal. I don't know if more/less people would have gone to see it if Sean C took the part (I doubt it though)
However, there has got to besome kind of sanity cap on these "small country GDP" type salaries. Say 99.9% tax above your 2nd million!
clever guy ey...
Still not fixed paycheck.
He would have been wrong for the role.
No Comment
I don't understand why everyone gets so worked up about the money that actors cammand. Everyone that pays money at the theater or DVD store does so of their own free will. And they must think it's worth it, cause they do it again and again. Why not look at the billions earned by CEOs of pharmaceutical companies, who take advantage of us when we're too sick to say NO?
As for Gandalf, Ian was better than Sean, and the nesemble approach to casting was correct.
Am I reading this correctly? McKellan made $500m form the LOTR films???? Speechless.
He would have been perfect for the part.But, hey,"There's always tomorrow", and"There's plenty more where that came from."Part of the male chauvenist banter frequently used by those "dating" Bangkok bargirls. Or so I'm reliably informed. A whore is a whore is a whore. Not that I'm saying a word against ...
I'll admit McKellen was good. Patrick Stewart would have been better IMO. An *unknown* would have been ideal.
Personally, I think strong roles like these deserve an unknown. I care not for actors/actresses that are too politically active or caught up in too much scandal. The characters they play on screen become less believable. Their public lives ruin the fictional roles they play in movies because one is forced to move beyond their personal mess in order to enjoy the movie. It makes me feel like I'm supporting their celebrity status and increasing their wealth which gives them their strong political voice in the first place.
But I so love J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy classic and couldn't stay away from Jackson's trilogy. I really had to bite the bullet on this one.
Alas, too many good actors out there are in need of a job while we keep recirculating the already rich and famous mollycoddled.
N at 20: Harrison Ford was also in 'Force 10 from Navarone', a sequent to 'Guns of Navarone', back in 1978.
I think we are overlooking the 18 months Sir Shean would have had to spend in NZ. Like he said, that was a major turn off (and it's not like he needs the money).
For me the big turn off in LOTR was when Jackson messed up by Faramir's, "The Ring Goes TO Gondor!!!!!"
NO, the whole point it didn't in the book was to show the difference between him and his brother.
Sean is a dick I wish he would go away
# 47 why?
John Lennon also ask Sean to join The Beatles but he didn't want to spend 18 months in Hamburg, so he eventually ask Paul McCartney instead....
Dr Blockbuster says Scho what ??
