I don’t think he’ he’d be a good Gandalf anyways
nothing against him, but what we got was perfect.
I don’t think he’ he’d be a good Gandalf anyways
nothing against him, but what we got was perfect.
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.
And then Highlander, so it was no wonder he was a bit wary when it came to LOTR.
My shubmarine doeshn’t react well to bulletsh, Ryan.
You've really gotta admire his outright contempt at the thought of even attempting a Russian accent in that movie.
His character is actually Lithuanian, so he shouldn't have a Russian accent. Not that Scottish is accurate...
It was a thriller movie in the 90s for American audiences.
Whether he had contempt or not the accents did not matter. Just needed something to indicate "not American"
“Some things in here don’t react well to bullets”
But Highlander was awesome.
It won the Academy Award for best movie ever made.
Zardoz is legit a good movie
I assumed it was going to be, but when I watched I found it aggressively terrible.
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.
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.
Also, Zardoz is where he came up with the policy of not acting in movies that he doesn't "get".
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.)
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.
Frankly LOTR is way overrated. Both the books (and therefore) the movies.
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.
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.
Didn’t hate it? It was a fun action film. Sometimes people take things too seriously.
It has some of the worst dialogue and pacing of any movie I've ever seen. I can see how it would be fun as a kid, but even as a teenager, it sucked ass.
With adult eyes, it's pretty bad. Also, it's an adaptation of a much better Alan Moore graphic novel.
I don't feel the need to discuss the rest of the movie but that car, though ... It was a thing of beauty.
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.
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.
Idk he could land "Run, you foolsh!" pretty well.
"You shall not pash!"
"Is it shecret? Is it shafe?"
"When did Sharuman the wishe replace hish wishdom with madnessh?"
You could play this game all day long
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.
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.
I already told you, I will not hear corrections! Blocked!!!
Well, just for blocking me, I'm blocking you. In fact, I'm double blocking you! NyahNyah! ;P
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.
I mean, looking back at his filmography, he arguably never could. (Zardoz is good, though.)
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.
Okay, but hear me out. Zardoz is good.
I know it looks goofy, and it IS goofy. But it's also GOOD.
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.
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.
Same. It was actually trying things, but all people see is this one image of Sean Connery.
I mean, maybe the bottom picture made perfect sense to Sean?
I've enjoyed a great deal of movies with Connery as the lead. I think he made the right choice not being Gandalf.
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?
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.
Ouch. I liked that movie and always wanted a sequel
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.
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
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.
Cocaine was cheap and plentiful in the 70s.
Even selective people make bad selections now and then.
top 100 comments