Roles that actors have declined or missed - what could have been. (2 Viewers)

[johnnybach]

They may be doing a job but just like any job, some are brilliant some shouldn't even get before the camera, with many levels in between. There is a big difference between reading the words aloud and being an actor. To understand that all one need do is compare many of the current generation of actors to those that came before them. In some cases no words can save them. A great writer can make a good actor look better but he can not make a bad actor look good.

Yes - I agree with much of what you say. The "great" ones - like Laurence Olivier - as mentioned previously in that quote, was saying, I think, that he found that acting came easily to him - and was just "reading out loud" what somebody else had written. The fact that he could probably read the phone book aloud - and sound good - probably never occurred to him!^&grin

Films are a somewhat different kettle of fish though. Directors, producers, cameramen, lighting engineers - even musicians collaborate with the actors to produce a package at the end - some of which work - whilst others don't. Even some of the great actors "bomb" - if all of the other elements aren't right. Think of some Film scores that have actually "made" an otherwise mediocre film?

To argue that x would have played a part better than y is, I think, rather pointless. If a certain actor made a success of a part - who is to say another might have not done that equally as well - or maybe better - given all of the others who made the film remaining the same? Many actors/ actresses are just eternally grateful they landed a part which made them a Star - whilst others maybe regret passing it up - after the fact. Everybody makes mistakes.

That's just life! jb

 

[BlakeWR85]

In Gettysburg, Robert Duvall was suppose to play Lee (which he did in the prequel Gods and Generals), so the part went to Sheen.

In Gods and Generals, Russell Crowe was suppose to play Jackson, but went to Stephan Lang (Lang played Pickett in Gettysburg and was suppose to in G and G), and the part of Pickett in G and G went to Billy Campell (who played the courier in Gettysburg who informed Chamberlain early the 3rd day that he was going to the "safest spot on the battlefield, right smack dab in the center")

Kevin Conway, who played Sgt. Buster Kilrain turned down a role in Lord of the rings to play in G and G.

 

[Harper (aka Spitfrnd)]

Yes - I agree with much of what you say. The "great" ones - like Laurence Olivier - as mentioned previously in that quote, was saying, I think, that he found that acting came easily to him - and was just "reading out loud" what somebody else had written. The fact that he could probably read the phone book aloud - and sound good - probably never occurred to him!^&grin

........
To argue that x would have played a part better than y is, I think, rather pointless. If a certain actor made a success of a part - who is to say another might have not done that equally as well - or maybe better - given all of the others who made the film remaining the same? Many actors/ actresses are just eternally grateful they landed a part which made them a Star - whilst others maybe regret passing it up - after the fact. Everybody makes mistakes.

Olivier probably could have made the phone book come alive. Moreover, in many of the better films, it is what they don't say and how, that really makes a classic performance. Olivier was a master at that as well.

I am afraid I can't agree that you can't reasonably predict how various actors would have relatively performed in roles they did not get. By the time they have a "career", we have more than sufficient examples of their work in various different types of movies and while certainly directors in particular have a large impact on an actor's performance, they all have strengths and weaknessess that become apparent from their mulitple roles. For some actors though, they would simply make the role their own no matter what the movies: Nicholson is a prime example of that, as are Denzel Washington, Greg Kinnear, Robert Duval, Gene Hackman and Russel Crowe. More actors are great at one or more types but not nearly as good at others. I think this is the case for even great actors like George Clooney, Bruce Willis and Steve McQueen and even the very great Paul Neuman. That does not mean that these folks are not great actors but rather they are best playing the types most consistent with their acting styles. So yes indeed, depending on the type of the role and the type of the actor, I do think relative sucess can be judged.

 

[Scott]

In Gettysburg, Robert Duvall was suppose to play Lee (which he did in the prequel Gods and Generals), so the part went to Sheen.

In Gods and Generals, Russell Crowe was suppose to play Jackson, but went to Stephan Lang (Lang played Pickett in Gettysburg and was suppose to in G and G), and the part of Pickett in G and G went to Billy Campell (who played the courier in Gettysburg who informed Chamberlain early the 3rd day that he was going to the "safest spot on the battlefield, right smack dab in the center")

Kevin Conway, who played Sgt. Buster Kilrain turned down a role in Lord of the rings to play in G and G.

Crowe doesn't have G & G to scrape off his shoes. ^&grin

 

[Ragnar]

Crowe doesn't have G & G to scrape off his shoes. ^&grin

I think Crowe would make a good Grant.