MovieChat Forums > On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) Discussion > Has any actor misread a movie franchise'...

Has any actor misread a movie franchise's future worse than George Lazenby did when he just did one Bond movie?

posted 3 years ago by TMC-4 (19392)
22 replies | jump to latest

https://www.quora.com/Has-any-actor-misread-a-movie-franchises-future-worse-than-George-Lazenby-did-when-he-just-did-one-Bond-movie/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

Multiple times, including:

Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, and Burt Lancaster all misread the tea leaves when it came to the role of Dirty Harry Callahan - All three were offered the lead role in the film, and all three declined. Sinatra because he was coming off of his detective/cop roles in Tony Rome, Lady in Cement and The Detective, while John Wayne and Burt Lancaster didn’t care for the script. The film role went to an up and coming former television actor named Clint Eastwood and it was a box office smash.

Wayne, realizing how badly he had screwed up, tried to redeem himself by making TWO separate cop films (McQ, and Braningan) both of which were duds. While Lancaster remained a lead actor, his days of large box office successes were over. It wasn’t until 1980’s Atlantic City that he experienced another critical hit; however following that he was only seen in character roles until a stroke in 1990 left him unable to speak clearly. He died in 1994.

Sinatra’s declining film profile coincided with his turn down the Dirty Harry role. He didn’t make another feature film until 1980 (it was, ironically, a cop film entitled The First Deadly Sin) and that project bombed at the box office. Although Sinatra had character roles in few feature films for the remainder of his life, he was no longer a leading man. Had he taken the Harry Callahan role, it’s possible that he could have revived his film career and perhaps even been a lead until the early 1980s or later.

Sean Connery, on the other hand, completely missed how popular The Lord of The Rings franchise would be - Connery was nearing the end of his career and he was offered the role of the wizard Gandalf. He rather foolishly declined and an actor who had not experienced much success in Hollywood films to that point, Ian McKellen, took it and revived his flagging career (he was working on the X-Men franchise when he was cast as Gandalf).

Connery, realizing his error, decided to compound it by taking the lead role in the sci-fi/steampunk debacle The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The project bombed critically and financially, and it led to Connery retiring from films altogether. While McKellen became extremely popular and wealthy, Connery spent many of his final years explaining to interviewers why he made such a poor decision. Connery died October 31, 2020 at the age of 90.

[–] filmgeek99 (591) 3 years ago

Bela Lugosi turning down the role of Frankenstein's monster because "part wasn't sexy enough" deserves an honorable mention.

[–] millsey72 (9530) 2 years ago

He was Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster was never a vampire, so your post makes no sense

[–] filmgeek99 (591) 2 years ago

That doesn't change the fact that he turned down a huge money making role. A role that could've possibly prevented him from having to star in Ed Wood films to pay for his morphine addiction in his final years. And when did I say Frankenstein was a vampire?

The fuck are you talking about?

[–] millsey72 (9530) 2 years ago

But Lugosi was the Frankenstein Monster in Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, so your post makes no sense

[–] filmgeek99 (591) 2 years ago

That was literally a whole decade after and by then, the Universal horror franchise was already on its last leg. Whoever they got to play The Monster made no difference by that point, as the series was no longer popular enough to revamp (no pun intended) Lugosi's career.

Do you get it now?

[–] millsey72 (9530) 2 years ago

Oh ok, I think I get what you are saying. The Frankenstein Monster became so boring after a decade, that it brought down the Universal horror franchise, and as a result, Bela Lugosi developed a morphine addiction and had to be in Ed Wood films because he couldn't be Dracula anymore

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Will Smith turned down the Matrix so he could do Wild Wild West

[–] TimMC (9143) 3 years ago

That has to still burn.

I finally watched WWW a few months ago and oh my..... it was at best, ok. There was a scene where WS had to act, really act. And he failed.

PS. I'm not dissing WS, I like him.

[–] TMC-4 (19392) 2 years ago

What If Will Smith Played Neo In The Matrix

https://screenrant.com/will-smith-neo-matrix-casting-what-if/

Will Smith famously turned down the role of Neo in The Matrix, which begs an interesting question: how has this decision affected his acting career?

[–] huwdj (4562) 3 years ago

Saw a Lazenby interview once. Apparently he turned down a second Bond on the advice of someone he thought was a good friend - and he sounded very bitter as he told the story.

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 2 years ago

That must have been one jealous friend.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16140) 2 years ago

Will Smith turning down the Matrix has to be up there.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 2 years ago

I seem to recall that Smith at least knew he wasn't right for the role. I think I read an interview with him where he basically said, "I wouldn't have done that part like that, so the whole movie would've been different," and I agree. I think the Matrix, uh, dodged a bullet with Smith turning the role down. We'd have gotten a much more smart-alec Neo, and I think it would have made the rest of the film less impactful. Still super fun, but not as complete.

[–] cyguration (3834) 2 years ago

Agreed.

Smith is too modern and smarmy for a role like Neo.

Neo had to be a vehicle for the audience to understand what The Matrix was, and Smith is too self-obsessed to have let his character be a vessel for the audience to understand rather than a character to project his own personality. In many ways, Neo was like Link from the Legend of Zelda -- Link is a character, but in most games the player has no clue what's going on and neither does Link. So Link is a vessel used to convey the world and story to the player, much like how Neo was a vessel used for Morpheus, Trinity, and Smith to convey the world of The Matrix to the viewer.

I could be wrong, but I just don't see Smith -- especially at that point in his career -- side-stepping his ego to let the world of The Matrix be bigger than him. It's why the most memorable line from Neo in the first film is "Whoa!" because that's sort of how most people felt when first experiencing The Matrix. Everyone else had all the more character-defining lines in the film, especially Laurence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 2 years ago

I think the "Whoa" is famous partly because it's just such a "Classic Keanu" moment. But, yes, Neo as a bit of a mirror for the audience was necessary to let us all into the strange world of the Matrix. The Link analogy is a pretty good one, although I think Neo has a bit more personality than Link. Then again, perhaps that's just because Link doesn't have any dialogue and Neo at least talks; we can see him react to things.

I don't know if The Matrix would have been bad with Will Smith in the role, I just think it would have been different. I think it would have wound up with a lot of Will Smith type jokes in there, and that would've been fine, but detracted from the sublimity of the film we got. It would have brought the film down to another Will Smith '90s action flick and be remembered along with stuff like Independence Day and Men in Black. People like those films, generally-speaking, but they don't remember them as major cinematic benchmarks, which is what we got.

Of all the actor names that got kicked around for the film, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Will Smith, and Sandra Bullock (apparently turned it down because she had recently acted in The Net), I think Reeves was one of the best results for the reasons we're talking about. Ironically, in terms of being a blank slate for the audience, he's a bit of a cipher...

Just for fun, I'd say that Tom Cruise and Will Smith would have been the worst choices out of that group. Brad Pitt might have been able to do it. He's a bit of a character actor trapped in a leading man's body, so his vibe might've worked.

[–] cyguration (3834) 2 years ago

Very interesting possibilities there....

I just don't think Leonardo would have been willing to subside himself in the role of Neo. I can't think of any movie he's been in where he was willing to basically be a proxy character instead of a character-character.

Sandra Bullock actually would have been a cool choice, and I could definitely see her embodying what Neo was supposed to be, all while still being quirky and charming. The biggest issue, obviously, would have been the physicality, as I don't think she would have been too apt in the martial arts/gunplay department (has she done a heavily physical action film other than Speed 2?)

I also agree with you that Will Smith would have been the worst out of the group, but I actually have opposite feelings about Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise.

Ironically, I think Cruise would have been the next best choice to Keanu Reeves, only because he sometimes CAN subside himself in a role to let the movie become more encompassing than his character, he sort of did it in Minority Report and he was definitely that way in the first Mission Impossible (the only one that felt like a proper espionage film instead of a Tom Cruise vanity project). If Cruise could have been the way he was in the first MI as portraying Neo, I could definitely see him donning the long coat, sunglasses and willing to learn the martial arts for the fight scenes. Brad Pitt? Ehhh...

I've yet to see Brad in a role where he wasn't in some way Brad Pitt... a role where he was just a proxy, and the movie itself was bigger than him. Maybe Babel? But even then he didn't really disappear into the role the way Cate Blanchett did. I do agree that Pitt is definitely a great character actor (Kalifornia is still his best work in my opinion), but it's hard to envision him committing to the kung-fu the way Keanu did or the way Cruise might have.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 2 years ago

Good point with DiCaprio not being able to do a Neo-like role. I don't think he would've been great, either. I think he's a really talented actor, but he can bomb (Romeo + Juliet...) and would've looked too boyish.

Bullock would've been interesting. I don't think the physicality would've been a problem since they gave the actors on The Matrix extensive training and they all look good.

Oh, I 100% think Cruise is a great actor and is underrated. People say he's bad, just a pretty boy, only does leading man stuff, but they've forgotten his performances in Tropic Thunder, Interview with the Vampire, Last Samurai, Collateral, A Few Good Men, Born on the 4th of July, Eyes Wide Shut, Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia... and on and on and on. I'm glad to see you also dig him in Minority Report and M:I! I love the first one for the same reasons you give!

You've talked me into it: Cruise would've been better than DiCaprio for sure.

12 Monkeys Brad Pitt is him pulling out a lot of stops. I think Pitt is a good actor, he can handle a lot of different types of parts, and he could deliver on the cool badass vibes. Goodness knows he's a horrible person in Fight Club, but Tyler Durden gets a lot of misguided fan love. So, I think I'll hold on to Pitt as being able to give a great Neo.

[–] Cognoscente (2463) 2 years ago

Eric Stoltz reportedly had literally misread Back to the Future as a drama at a table reading.

[–] huwdj (4562) 2 years ago

I was just watching a short 'making of' documentary, filmed in 2006 I think, with lots of the people who made the film and Lazenby, but not Rigg unfortunately.
Apparently Lazenby's business manager stated he would not be doing a second Bond even though they had not actually talked about it. Broccoli accepted the 'resignation' and that was that. Also United Artists dumped the blame for initially lower box office on Lazenby's and the press - as is often the way - ran a lot of critical stories based on very little or nothing. So basically he was stuffed. In the documentary Lazenby's say he didn't care so much at the time because he thought that type of film had had it's day. But he later regretted not making a second and so did the a lot of the films makers.

[–] jacotodd47 (984) 2 years ago

In terms of bucks - Sean Connery couldn't have screwed up worse (RE: THe Lord of the RIngs franchise). His blunder cost him millions. Another one is Donald Sutherland. He could have had a piece of "Animal House". Instead he decided he'd take 50 grand (he was offered 35). But that 50 grand, that's all he got. He'd still be collecting today if he took a piece of the film. Anyway, onto Lazenby. If someone could educate me I'd be grateful. I was under the impression they didn't want him back. In other words, it wasn't up to him to not return and play James Bond again. But I could be wrong on that. Does anyone know for sure?

[–] ebhaynz (3525) 2 years ago

OHMSS only made about half the money the previous Connery Bond film made. I seriously doubt Broccoli would have let Lazenby do another, like 99.9% sure. Broccoli really wanted Connery back for at least one more Bond. He gave Connery a bucket load of money to do Diamonds are Forever and even though it's considered one of the weaker Bond films it made a lot more money than OHMSS.

In short, Lazenby was one and done no matter what.

[–] jacotodd47 (984) 2 years ago

That's what I thought - they didn't want him back. It's not like Lazenby made a career error. Thanks for the response.