top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 150 points 9 months ago (36 children)

I don’t think he’ he’d be a good Gandalf anyways

nothing against him, but what we got was perfect. 

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] [S] 76 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    It's hard for me to imagine anyone else in any of the roles. They are all such perfect fits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Gollum should've been played by Nicolas Cage. With no VFX or makeup.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Also Willem Dafoe with a bald cap could pull it off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    That reminds me of how Will Smith turned down Neo in The Matrix because he thought Wild Wild West was the safer bet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Honestly though, I agree with him. WWW definitely is the safer bet on paper. But safer doesn't mean foolproof, and the risky ventures sometimes are the most profitable. Making the worse move doesn't necessarily mean you made the incorrect one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Have you heard Kevin Smith's story about WWW?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    I haven't and would like to be enlightened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    You're going to enjoy this, I think (ignore the titles of the videos, this is definitely what @maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone was referring to, and the context makes the bit about WWW so much better:

    https://youtu.be/Wo2KB1dEDdk
    https://youtu.be/53hMYw8LX60

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Thanks! I'll check it out now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah, but in the third act he got to fight a giant spider. Do you know anything about spiders? They're the fiercest killers in the insect kingdom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    He would've been awful. Connery was good at playing smarmy dickheads, but he was kind of ass any time he wasn't playing a smarmy dickhead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    This is why his performance in The Rock is pitch perfect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 90 points 9 months ago (20 children)

    To be fair to Connery, Zardoz was right after 007. He was type casted and nobody would hire him. He had to do something different to get new work. Also, Zardoz is legit a good movie... If you get past the weird and laughable aesthetic choices, the plot is a decent sci fi plot.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    And then Highlander, so it was no wonder he was a bit wary when it came to LOTR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    My shubmarine doeshn’t react well to bulletsh, Ryan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You've really gotta admire his outright contempt at the thought of even attempting a Russian accent in that movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Zardoz is legit a good movie

    I assumed it was going to be, but when I watched I found it aggressively terrible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    But, did you watch it a second time? Honestly it's awful the first watch because you can't get past the aesthetic of it. When I watched it again I realized the movie itself is pretty good. It's practically the definition of a good bad movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I have not. Maybe I'll try it again someday because I actually have more than once hated a movie first try and liked it on second viewing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Zardoz is legit a good movie

    Well, ok. But we are comparing it with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

    (But then, committing to a trilogy probably has a huge opportunity cost.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 9 months ago*

    Bear in mind that very few people thought a film adaptation of LOTR was actually going to be any good. It seems obvious now, but it was not seen a really viable project with how trilogies were made at the time (with many years between them) the amount of budget needed, and the effects challenges. The guys who made the movies deserve a lot of credit for doing something so well that it looks obvious when they are done, but little thinks like how to do the hobbits were seen as effects challenges with no real solution that wouldn't look stupid or be insanely expensive.

    Connery would have been the biggest name in the film and getting attached to something that wound up looking like shit or making him look stupid would have been a bigger problem for him than anyone. Again, its obvious that they turned out great, but look at what Peter Jackson made before this and its not really as obvious a choice as one would think now (although I am personally a fan of his early work, I get why people might not be and why people maybe wouldn't hand him the biggest film franchise in history).

    And just for a fun tidbit, at the time that Connery bailed on the offer the film was being produced by Weinstein, so I get maybe not wanting to work with that dirtbag. They almost lost Liv Tyler for the same reason and reportedly did lose them Ashley Judd and Mia Sorvino, who flat out refused to be attached to anything involving him.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Frankly LOTR is way overrated. Both the books (and therefore) the movies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    I heard this story, not sure if it's true, but I choose to believe it and will not hear any corrections; apparently, he was approached about Gandalf, but he turned it down because he didn't really understand it. Then he was approached about Dumbledore, but turned it down because he didn't really understand it. After seeing how those two franchises turned out, he said, "screw it, I'm taking the next role that I don’t get." That role was Alan Quartermaine in League of Extraordinary Gentleman. After that movie bombed he retired from acting altogether.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    That role was Alan Quartermaine in League of Extraordinary Gentleman. After that movie bombed he retired from acting altogether.

    Which is a shame really because I remember it being... Kinda good? Clearly not a work of great art, but fun action silliness. Admittedly I watched it as a kid and never again so who knows really.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I'd also argue that however the movie did after the fact, turning down roles you don't understand is probably the smarter option. Maybe those other movies would have also flopped if they had Connery in those roles.

    Like I can't picture him doing a good Gandalf. It wouldn't be Gandalf, it would be Sean Connery in a wizard outfit. I can't think of any roles where Connery played someone who wasn't Sean Connery. He brought a lot of charisma to his roles but not a ton of range.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Jesus can you actually imagine if LOTR had Sean Connery instead of Ian McKellen? Hideous prospect. No shade to Connery, he's played some of my favourite characters over the years, but christ that would have been a terrible mistake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Idk he could land "Run, you foolsh!" pretty well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    I agree that he wouldn't have been right for either part, but I'm sure they still would have been very successful franchises. Also, he probably wouldn't have gotten either part (definitely not Gandalf), they were just approaching him about it. Producers on Batman (1989) were in talks with Bill Murray and Pierce Brosnan before they moved on to Michael Keaton, but it's pretty unlikely either one would have made it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    He didn't quit acting just because the movie bombed. Him and the director had such epic fights on the set of the movie, that BOTH of them quit Hollywood afterwards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    I already told you, I will not hear corrections! Blocked!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Well, just for blocking me, I'm blocking you. In fact, I'm double blocking you! NyahNyah! ;P

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    In all seriousness though, thank you for the information, but I will still continue to believe that Sean Connery gave up acting because he could no longer figure out what good or bad movies were.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 9 months ago

    There was a population boost in the town they filmed Zardoz in due to all of the drug-induced revelry that was going on during the making of that movie.

    There is a good chance that town is populated with tens if not scores of Sean Connery's illegitimate grandchildren now.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Okay, but hear me out. Zardoz is good.

    I know it looks goofy, and it IS goofy. But it's also GOOD.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago

    The director's commentary is so delightfully honest, right at the top he's like "so I'll be the first to admit, this film kinda got away from us,"

    Quoting from memory. But that was the gist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I need to watch it. The guy who hosts our card games has that picture on a greeting card on his fridge, it makes me laugh everytime I see it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I mean, maybe the bottom picture made perfect sense to Sean?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago

    I've enjoyed a great deal of movies with Connery as the lead. I think he made the right choice not being Gandalf.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Zardoz was awesome though. It actually had an interesting world and compelling sci fi ideas. And one of the greatest reveals in cinema! You know why call him "Zardoz", right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    I'm sure his time on league of extraordinary gentlemen made him never want to do anything even near that kind of movie ever again.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Ouch. I liked that movie and always wanted a sequel

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Biggest problem with that movie is it's pacing IMO, shouldve either been an hour longer or gone in with the intention of making it two movies. At the very least they needed to include some pre release specials on the Sci-fi channel going over the history of the characters mostly because while most of the characters come from early modern literature Mina Harker for example is pretty fucken obscure if you haven't consumed more Dracula or it's more direct adaptations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I have obscure tastes, LoL. Actually I found it most difficult to explain the science and technology background of Nemo to the uninitiated - people just know him as the guy with the submarine but the car and other tech were right in line with the character

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Honestly I kinda wonder if it would've done better nowadays, it's basically a live action cousin of the Castlevania anime in a lot of ways. Still very cheesy but it is more than capable of taking itself seriously and generally respects the source materials, Jeckel and Hyde not withstanding but they always get messed up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Cocaine was cheap and plentiful in the 70s.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Even selective people make bad selections now and then.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›