Michael Baldwin
Is great in the commentary.
You Can't Spell Success without U.
[deleted]
I love it when he gets on the subject of Phantasm II.
He is still pretty peeved about not being in that one.
MovieChat Forums > Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead (1994) Discussion > Michael Baldwin
I thought he seemed a bit like a self-centered jerk who bizarrely keeps talking about himself in third person almost as if he's a fanboy admiring himself. His dismissal of the second film is very clearly only because he wasn't in the second film. The fact that he wasn't in it hardly makes it a bad film or not worth talking about. In fact, I think it's the best film of the series.
Angus Scrimm, on the other hand, came across as a mellow, humble, intelligent, thoughtful and fun guy.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
[deleted]
I have to agree with everything JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies said. Those were my exact feelings when I was viewing Phantasm III with the commentary track. He does kind of come off as an a$$hole. But I still love his performance as Mike in the Phantasm saga regardless of what his personality is like in real life
shareYou can't spell success without a "SUC" either.
shareI don't really have any feelings one way or another as far as how A. Michael Baldwin is as a person. I will say that I have always thought the second "Phantasm" is the best in the series, which is odd because it is the one with real studio involvement in the making, so his ridicule of that movie does really come across as sour grapes for Universal's rejection of him reprising the role. It is understandable to an extent though as I'm sure he perceives the character as his own. The cast & crew of the "Phantasm" films are like a fairly close nit group of people, so maybe the rejection was personal to him, but also felt not only from a casting standpoint, but in other choices the studio may have imposed on the production of the second film. He might be speaking some angst not mentioned by the others, Don Coscarelli in particular. I loved the end product of 2 so I can't join in the personal woes.
shareI'm sure he wasn't happy at being replaced, but I think he's just trying to be snarky and funny about it when he badmouths the movie. I personally think it's the best of the sequels (love all of them though) but would've been better with Baldwin. Not because LeGros did anything wrong (he's a good action hero in II) but because Baldwin made the character what it was in the first. I CAN say that I'm disappointed that the Mike character became so damaged in the later sequels. He was a real bad ass in the first. In the later flicks he came off as suffering from PTSD. An interesting choice, and one that doesn't ruin the movie, but I would have liked to see him go the other way with it.
shareI just wonder why they ditched the handsome and talented James Le Gros, from the second one.
sharei remember in the first phantasm commentary, folks complained about mike's childish behavior. Especially when the wind machine was going on and the kid kept throwing rocks through it at the Lady in Lavender and Reggie Bannister.
The director hinted that behind the scenes he was a bit of brat.
i also found it strange that the director chose to use Le Gros versus Mike in the second Phantasm. He DID have a choice between the two actors, and opted to keep Reggie Bannister as the original main character.
When interviewed regarding Le Gros' behavior BEHIND the scenes. Everyone spoke quite glowingly about him. How he got along and worked well with the cast and crew versus Mike.
I think Mike Baldwin learned his lesson after the Phantasm II butt hurt. They kissed and made up, and moved on.
some days, it's not worth chewing through the restraints..
[deleted]
Baldwin's a terrible actor. He looked like he was about to laugh several times during his scenes in Phantasm 3 when the tone was supposed to be serious.
I tend to believe what you wrote. And someone should have punched Baldwin in the face for throwing rocks like that.