He was not that much in the movie. Val Kilmer already had some box-office hits and he almost in in every scene. That's often bit annoying. It's like the batman movies where the villains get top billing over the main character.
sharelol I see your point but it's always worked like that. It's about whoevers the hottest at that time. Just think of the year 1996. Michael Douglas was probably one of the top 5 most popular actors at that time so they are bound to put him as top billing.
Here's another example. Remember who was top billing in Executive Decision also in 1996? That'd be Steven Seagal; incredible as it is considering he dies very early on. He had gained a lot of popularity for that small period of time after the two Under Sieges. But now in 2008, Kurt Russell gets top billing(only mentions him, in fact) in the TV magazines. Kurt isn't even that big now, but Steven Seagal has sank so low on the hierarchy he is known now for nothing but straight to DVD movies at a machine-gun fire release rate. Oh yeah, and another one is Boiler Room. Ben Affleck had top spot in 2000. But now Giovanni Rbisi only gets mentioned. I wonder why? *cough* Gigli, Pearl Harbour, Surviving Christmas *cough* *cough*
So it's always about who's the most popular at the time, and never the length of time they are in the movie. Whatever it takes to get people to that cinema I guess.
also, michael douglas produced the film...may have had something to do with it, as he had the money to throw around and got to call some of the shots.
shareVal Kilmer was pretty popular too...he had come out with Willow, Tombstone, and Batman Forever before this came out.
shareMichael Douglas gave an excellent performance. The only problem is what happened to him toward the end, the disappearing act.
shareLambimacfly;
Here is the answer to your question. Peece101 had it right. I was on the "Blind Horizon" set filming a movie with Val Kilmer, when shooting was over and during a break, I ask Mr. Kilmer, that very question.
His answer;
"Michael was the Executive Producer and could put him name where he
wanted it, EVEN, being able to get top billing over me. " (Kilmer)
This was the first time I ever met, Mr. Kilmer and he turned out
to be a true gentleman and a great host.
Later
"If you make the world your enemy, you'll never run out of reasons to be miserable" LC
Obvious,Michael Douglas have top billing in this movie. It's the first established star of the two, produced the movie and also have 2 Academy Awards. Kilmer is the newcomer,so besides he's the lead and Douglas screentime is only half an hour, the top billing belongs to Douglas. It's like other movies like: First Knight (Connery billed first but Gere is the lead), Interview with the Vampire (Cruise billed first but Brad Pitt have the starring role),Brando first to Pacino in The Godfather, Brando and Duvall first to Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, and so on...
shareIf they got Douglas for his 'star' appeal they failed miserably. There was no such person in Patteson's accounts.
shareVal was never as big as Michael Douglas. I remember the 90's well and other than the terrible Batman film he did.... he really wasn't as big as you guys think. He was known, but he wasn't a gigantic star like Michael Douglas.
shareI would have to disagree with you. Val Kilmer, while not as big of a star than Douglas, was an A list star. Batman Forever might not have been a good movie by your standards, but it was a huge success at the box office. Also, Tombstone was another giant hit that opened many doors for Kilmer. He was a big deal and a marquee star.
According to William Goldman, Michael Douglas did in fact produce the film and insisted on being in the film after not being able to cast someone like Clint Eastwood. It was an ego thing and anyone who has ever seen the film would tell you that Kilmer should have gotten top billing. This is in William Goldman's book called "Which Lie Did I Tell?: More Adventures in the Screen Trade".
Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas were still big stars when this movie was filmed so why not do this movie?
I thought they were a good combo together.
I remember the 90's well and other than the terrible Batman film he did.... he really wasn't as big as you guys think.The Doors? Heat? Doc Holliday in Tombstone? Over twenty years later, they're still churning out "I'm your huckleberry" mugs and t-shirts. share
He was not that much in the movie. Val Kilmer already had some box-office hits and he almost in in every scene. That's often bit annoying. It's like the batman movies where the villains get top billing over the main character.
Michael Douglas stole the movie with his character and choices. In the same way Mel Gibson stole Payback.
Two actors with producer status making amazing decisions for the betterment of each movie, personal feelings and fairness be damned.
Michael Douglas absolutely is rightly billed first. His star power was bigger, and his imprint on the film bigger from being a producer (not exec, meaning not money. Michael shepperded this project in some or a big way), and because his character was a huge impact of the movie, and very well acted.
Probably these days his role would be classified an "and Michael Douglas" credit in the movie, and still prominent on the poster. Like Morgan Freeman does in his supporting roles.
Because there is 101 producers these days, such bold moves are not made, and hence movies are worse in promoting and produced - basically watered down compromise-fests where behind the scenes has to be an all-get-to-bat situation or else the movie suffers a reputation hit on the business end.
Probably these days his role would be classified an "and Michael Douglas" credit in the movie, and still prominent on the poster.I'd say that would be likely to happen. Michael Douglas was/is as much a successful producer as actor, in fact he hit the big time producing, whilst he was still essentially a support actor.
Hm.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Douglas was bigger in '96 than he is today, still considered a pretty big star (Basic Instinct had only been a half-decade prior), whereas Val Kilmer was considered a star on the rise (Batman Forever and Heat were his big films at that point). Douglas also was the executive producer and expanded his role in the film after signing on.
W.W.G.D.
What Would Gibson Do?
He pulled rank - he was also producer.
"If Mad Max Fury Road is an 8, then I'll use 8 for OK, 9 is better, 10 is best."