|
Post by jakesully on Jul 29, 2019 3:31:11 GMT
Josh Hartnett - Batman Begins. lol How in the fuck do you turn down Christopher Nolan?!? big dummy www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/17/josh-hartnett-i-regret-turning-down-batman-role-christopher-nolan“I’ve definitely said no to some of the wrong people,” he said. “I said no because I was tired and wanted to spend more time with my friends and family. That’s frowned upon in this industry. People don’t like being told no. I don’t like it. I learned my lesson when Christopher Nolan and I talked about Batman. I decided it wasn’t for me. Then he didn’t want to put me in The Prestige. They not only hired their Batman for it, they also hired my girlfriend [Scarlett Johansson] at the time.”
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Jul 29, 2019 4:56:06 GMT
One case I wonder is if Emily Blunt regrets not being able to play Black Widow on Iron Man because of Gulliver's Travels. I wonder if her career would have taken a completely different course and if it would be better or worse than it is today. Apart from A Quiet Place 2 and the potential Edge of Tomorrow sequel, I really hope she avoids the whole franchise thing. I know her fanbase has desperately wanted her in a Fantastic Four reboot for awhile as well, but (even speaking as an avid fan of the MCU), it would be such a waste of her talent and range to play such undemanding roles. I don't even want to think about all of the post-2010 roles she's had she would have likely missed out on if she did that (two of her most lovely and charming roles were the same year as the first Avengers). While we're on her, I assume she regrets doing something as idiotic as Wild Target, which she did just to reunite with Nighy.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jul 29, 2019 8:09:02 GMT
Or if Wasikowska had replaced Mara, would she have fixed the chemistry issue in Carol and actually made it work, or would the same issues have plagued it? Crimson Peak is a better movie than Carol so Mia Wasikowska shouldn't be beating herself up about that. I sincerely doubt that Wasikowska would be thinking that way. Whether or not you liked Carol, I mean I don't particularly love the film either, but the reality is Carol has been a far bigger success than Crimson Peak in terms of box office (Crimson Peak made more money but it was also far more expensive to make whereas Carol made nearly four times its budget), critical reviews, and especially awards. Carol constantly appears on best-of-the-decade lists and is almost considered iconic thanks to its subject matter (lesbian romance), whereas Crimson Peak is almost completley forgotten by virtually everyone. I don't think she would regret it too much though. It's not like Crimson Peak was a major critical and box office bomb and she still got to work with del Toro, a highly respected director in Hollywood. Winslet is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 6, 2019 18:52:21 GMT
I know people will disagree but right now at least it looks like the great Jack Nicholson is having a potentially rough 2019 by doing nothing at all:
Joe Pesci comes out of retirement and (maybe) gets big acclaim for it Pacino (maybe) plays Hoffa well which Nicholson thinks is one of his best roles (it's really not)
Phoenix becomes the 2nd guy to top his Joker DiCaprio possibly inches closer to his nominations record (this would be 6 if he gets it so half way there)
Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington are possibles to eventually tie him at 3 wins......Hanks theoretically this year even. So many older actors are high profile this year I can't even list them all.
When Jack retired he was just 73.....now he's closer to 83 (next April)....and that Toni Erdmann film looks long gone.....I don't think Hackman regrets it but Jack I think might.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 6, 2019 18:58:40 GMT
I mean, if the rumors that Nicholson's not mentally able to retain lines anymore, you can't really chalk that up to regret. But then, I think he should've retired in 2002 with About Schmidt and gone out on a high note.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 6, 2019 20:50:32 GMT
Well, for sure he shouldn't have retired with his last film being How Do You Know...
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Sept 6, 2019 20:55:25 GMT
Boxing. - Mickey Rourke.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 6, 2019 21:44:52 GMT
I know people will disagree but right now at least it looks like the great Jack Nicholson is having a potentially rough 2019 by doing nothing at all: Joe Pesci comes out of retirement and (maybe) gets big acclaim for it Pacino (maybe) plays Hoffa well which Nicholson thinks is one of his best roles (it's really not) Phoenix becomes the 2nd guy to top his Joker DiCaprio possibly inches closer to his nominations record (this would be 6 if he gets it so half way there) Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington are possibles to eventually tie him at 3 wins......Hanks theoretically this year even. So many older actors are high profile this year I can't even list them all. When Jack retired he was just 73.....now he's closer to 83 (next April)....and that Toni Erdmann film looks long gone.....I don't think Hackman regrets it but Jack I think might. Yeah, I largely disagree with this. I'm with you that retiring from acting will in no way, under any circumstance, make your body of work better, but I'll have to pick at some of those examples you listed. 1. Joe Pesci is not comparable to Nicholson in any way whatsoever. He could play 10 more roles to great acclaim and he'd still be trailing Nicholson by a large distance, legacy wise and body of work wise. 2. Pacino may well go on to be regarded as the better (definitive?) Hoffa, but that's just one character. Irrespective of what Nicholson thinks his best role is, it's clear Hoffa is not it in terms of general consensus. Pacino doing well with Hoffa will be a point in his favor regardless of how Nicholson did with that part. They've both got staggering bodies of work and their portrayals of Hoffa are just a small part of them. I think Nicholson and Pacino are very close as far as their bodies of work are concerned, and anything Pacino does and does well will only help him as far as that argument goes. 3. Phoenix may (will?) top Nicholson's Joker but, again, that's just one character. Nicholson will still have like 3 roles that are more entrenched in cinematic history than anything Phoenix will have done or is ever likely to do. Phoenix has a long way to go and needs many more great movies to be comparable to Nicholson. He'll basically need 2 more decades of the kind of work he's been doing the past decade, I think, which is a tall order. 4. DiCaprio is going to top out at 10 nominations, I think. He's behind Nicholson at the same age, and will only match him even if he is nominated this year. And he is simply not as loved within the Academy as Nicholson was. With that said, DiCaprio needs more than just Oscar nominations and wins to measure up to Nicholson. I'm not going to argue that Oscar nominations and wins don't mean anything for legacies, but Nicholson's filmography is littered with stone-cold classics (perhaps only De Niro's filmography matches and surpasses it among English-language actors). While DiCaprio has the strongest and most decorated filmography in the modern era (at least for his age), he is still some ways behind Nicholson in that respect. And with him working less and less often, I don't see it as likely that he will get up there, either in terms of nominations/wins or filmography. Even if he does, Nicholson will have his space all to himself. 5. Hanks and Washington are too far behind Nicholson in every way but movie stardom. Nicholson is more acclaimed and has a better filmography, which are basically the two most important considerations as far as this conversation goes. Nicholson has all the bases covered on those two fronts, with him dominating almost every award of note (3 Oscars, 3 BAFTAs, 6 Globes, 1 SAG, 1 Cannes, 6 NYFCC, 3 LAFCA, 5 NSFC, 5 NBR) and having several iconic roles, and also having the most decorated filmography of all time and many juggernaut classics. Hanks and Washington will never compare to that. If we're measuring careers by objective metrics, Nicholson has had by far the most successful career of any actor ever. It's hard to imagine any known actor matching him if we go by raw data. I think De Niro and Pacino are generally regarded as better actors, but I don't think any actor since Brando is as big of a legend as Nicholson is. He certainly has the largest footprint of any actor post-Brando as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 6, 2019 22:18:37 GMT
If we're measuring careers by objective metrics, Nicholson has had by far the most successful career of any actor ever. It's hard to imagine any known actor matching him if we go by raw data. I think De Niro and Pacino are generally regarded as better actors, but I don't think any actor since Brando is as big of a legend as Nicholson is. He certainly has the largest footprint of any actor post-Brando as far as I'm concerned. In terms of Nicholson's legend I always think of him in regards to Bogart too - where he is so unique and his personality is so linked to his screen persona that he can have a whole cult around him.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 6, 2019 22:19:20 GMT
I know people will disagree but right now at least it looks like the great Jack Nicholson is having a potentially rough 2019 by doing nothing at all: Joe Pesci comes out of retirement and (maybe) gets big acclaim for it Pacino (maybe) plays Hoffa well which Nicholson thinks is one of his best roles (it's really not) Phoenix becomes the 2nd guy to top his Joker DiCaprio possibly inches closer to his nominations record (this would be 6 if he gets it so half way there) Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington are possibles to eventually tie him at 3 wins......Hanks theoretically this year even. So many older actors are high profile this year I can't even list them all. When Jack retired he was just 73.....now he's closer to 83 (next April)....and that Toni Erdmann film looks long gone.....I don't think Hackman regrets it but Jack I think might. Yeah, I largely disagree with this. I'm with you that retiring from acting will in no way, under any circumstance, make your body of work better, but I'll have to pick at some of those examples you listed. 1. Joe Pesci is not comparable to Nicholson in any way whatsoever. He could play 10 more roles to great acclaim and he'd still be trailing Nicholson by a large distance, legacy wise and body of work wise. 2. Pacino may well go on to be regarded as the better (definitive?) Hoffa, but that's just one character. Regardless of what Nicholson thinks his best role is, it's clear Hoffa is not it in terms of general consensus. Pacino doing well with Hoffa will be a point in his favor regardless of how Nicholson did with that part. They've both got staggering bodies of work and their portrayals of Hoffa are just a small part of them. I think Nicholson and Pacino are very close as far as their bodies of work are concerned, and anything Pacino does and does well will only help him as far as that argument goes. 3. Phoenix may (will?) top Nicholson's joker but, again, that's just one character. Nicholson will still have like 3 roles that are more entrenched in cinematic history than anything Phoenix will have done or is ever likely to do. Phoenix has a long way to go and needs many more great movies to be comparable to Nicholson. He'll basically need 2 more decades of the kind of work he's been doing the past decade, I think, which is a tall order. 4. DiCaprio is going to top out at 10 nominations, I think. He's behind Nicholson at the same age, and will only match him even if he is nominated this year. And he is simply not as loved within the Academy as Nicholson was. With that said, DiCaprio needs more than just Oscar nominations and wins to measure up to Nicholson. I'm not going to argue that Oscar nominations and wins don't mean anything for legacies, but Nicholson's filmography is littered with stone-cold classics (perhaps only De Niro's filmography matches and surpasses it among English-language actors). While DiCaprio has the strongest and most decorated filmography in the modern era (at least for his age), he is still some ways behind Nicholson in that respect. And with him working less and less often, I don't see it as likely that he will get up there, either in terms of nominations/wins or filmography. Even if he does, Nicholson will have his space all to himself. 5. Hanks and Washington are too far behind Nicholson in every way but movie stardom. Nicholson is more acclaimed and has a better filmography, which are basically the two most important considerations as far as this conversation goes. Nicholson has all the bases covered on those two fronts, with him dominating almost every award of note (3 Oscars, 3 BAFTAs, 6 Globes, 1 SAG, 1 Cannes, 6 NYFCC, 3 LAFCA, 5 NSFC, 5 NBR) and having several iconic roles, and also having the most decorated filmography of all time and many juggernaut classics. Hanks and Washington will never compare to that. If we're measuring careers by objective metrics, Nicholson has had by far the most successful career of any actor ever. It's hard to imagine any known actor matching him if we go by raw data. I think De Niro and Pacino are generally regarded as better actors, but I don't think any actor since Brando is as big of a legend as Nicholson is. He certainly has the largest footprint of any actor post-Brando as far as I'm concerned. You understand of course Pacinoyes didn't write that all of these guys might surpass Jack. Especially for Pesci and Pacino, what he said was he might regret his retirement decision if he watches two of his peers doing so well coming back from retirement or playing a part he has played in the past respectively. It's about them doing good work, not topping Jack. At least that's the way I see it.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 6, 2019 22:28:57 GMT
You understand of course Pacinoyes didn't write that all of these guys might surpass Jack. Especially for Pesci and Pacino, what he said was he might regret his retirement decision if he watches two of his peers doing so well coming back from retirement or playing a part he has played in the past respectively. It's about them doing good work, not topping Jack. At least that's the way I see it. I think Nicholson knew when he decided to retire that a lot of actors would continue to do good work even in his absence. I doubt something as inconsequential as Pesci getting acclaim will even make him reconsider his decision. And I've already admitted that any good work that Pacino does will be significant as far as Nicholson is concerned; that is if he is seriously contemplating his acting legacy at this stage of his life.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 6, 2019 22:37:19 GMT
You understand of course Pacinoyes didn't write that all of these guys might surpass Jack. Especially for Pesci and Pacino, what he said was he might regret his retirement decision if he watches two of his peers doing so well coming back from retirement or playing a part he has played in the past respectively. It's about them doing good work, not topping Jack. At least that's the way I see it. I think Nicholson knew when he decided to retire that a lot of actors would continue to do good work even in his absence. I doubt something as inconsequential as Pesci getting acclaim will even make him reconsider his decision. And I've already admitted that any good work that Pacino does will be significant as far as Nicholson is concerned; that is if he is seriously contemplating his acting legacy at this stage of his life. If you ask me, there is no way he regrets it, especially after almost 10 years. And most of all, not because he worries about his legacy.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Sept 9, 2019 16:32:13 GMT
Stuart Townsend as Aragorn in LOTR
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 9, 2019 19:26:30 GMT
Stuart Townsend as Aragorn in LOTR Townsend was fired, so it's not like it was up to him.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Sept 10, 2019 10:01:46 GMT
Speaking of LOTR, Sean Connery turned down the role of Gandalf because he didn't understood the script. Even though he later added "I read the book. I read the script. I saw the movie. I still don’t understand it. Ian McKellen, I believe, is marvellous in it.” I'm certain he has some regrets, first because even though he said he don't understand it, he loved doing adventure movies and the LOTR trilogy is one of the definitives adventures creations on the big screen and it would have been great in Connery relatively unimpressive late/end film career. Secondly, in addition to a $10 million per film salary, they offered Connery 15% of the worldwide box office for all three movies which would have been nearly $450 million for the man (in his 70's).
|
|
|
Post by 010101 on Sept 10, 2019 10:50:37 GMT
Never regret anything in life.
Not even if you're an immortal robot
|
|