DVDizzy Forum

If I recall Morgan Freeman had been doing movies that were meaty, Oscar-worthy pictures and what not, he hadn't really done the Summer blockbuster movies that made millions of dollars in the first weekends. He wanted a change of pace and so he did Batman Begins and well, the rest is what we know. I don't blame him for it, you do what you want to do when u want to do it after you win an Oscar.

Not needing money and not wanting to say no to every ridiculous salary-to-work ratio offer that comes your way are two different things. It's not like a star doing a highly-paid job for a paycheck is taking anything away from the starving hard-working actor. They wouldn't be getting that kind of a paycheck for that role and most likely wouldn't be getting that role.

chadhobbick wrote:If I recall Morgan Freeman had been doing movies that were meaty, Oscar-worthy pictures and what not, he hadn't really done the Summer blockbuster movies that made millions of dollars in the first weekends. He wanted a change of pace and so he did Batman Begins and well, the rest is what we know.

I can understand how he wanted to do a different kind of movie. That's a professional challenge. But you said he did it for the money. That's a different thing entirely. You can't convince me that doing "Oscar-worthy pictures" *doesn't* make you millions of dollars.

Luke wrote:Not needing money and not wanting to say no to every ridiculous salary-to-work ratio offer that comes your way are two different things. It's not like a star doing a highly-paid job for a paycheck is taking anything away from the starving hard-working actor. They wouldn't be getting that kind of a paycheck for that role and most likely wouldn't be getting that role.

Oh, I agree with that. But that wasn't the point I was making. I just stated that it's -in my opinion- not believable when you're a millionaire and you say you have to do a particular movie "for the money". Megastars like Morgan Freeman or Bill Murray don't "need" more money.

And yes, I believe I can be the judge of that. But that's why I consider myself a socialist. (And no, where I live that's not a scary word or an insult.)

I think you have to take anything Bill Murray says with a pinch of salt. That talk about not leaving his driveway for less than 50,000 is, I would suspect, him playing a role. Just like I think Ricky Gervais is always playing a role when interviewed or at awards ceremonies.

Why? I don't know. They're probably both private people, and playing a role in public helps them. I dunno. But I wouldn't get angry about what he says.

Bill Murray obviously will leave his driveway for that sort of money because he has in the past, and will continue to do so. If the part is right.

Why did he do Garfield? Who knows. He liked the character? Liked the script he was sent (which was rewitten by the time he came to voice it)? He had younger family members who wanted him to do it? Or - and its not a sin - he decided the money offered for the time it would take was too good to pass up. Who here wouldn't turn down tens of thousands of dollars for a couple of weeks in a voice recording studio?

The fact that Bill Murry still appeared in independent films such as "Coffee and Cigarettes" and still continues to do so (such as "Get Low" - thanks IMDB!) shows that his decision to voice Garfield hasn't drastically changed his outlook on the business. In fact, if he really was "tricked" into Garfield, he's probably more wary than ever of studio pictures. I really don't see any harm in what he's done.

Not all Oscar winning/nominated pictures or roles pay millions of money to the actors.

chadhobbick wrote:Not all Oscar winning/nominated pictures or roles pay millions of money to the actors.

In fact, most Oscar winning/nominated pictures pay quite little, at least that is if you're a big star who believes in a small project's prospects, you're going to take a pay cut to see it made.

Speaking of which, it sounds like Murray could easily end up with a Supporting Actor Oscar nomination or even a win for <i>Get Low</i>.

Does everyone remember when he was nominated for an Oscar for Lost in Translation and ended up losing to Sean Penn? I remember watching that telecast and he was teased in the audience by the host later, asking him if he was okay, and to please not leave yet. When they announced Penn for the win, you could tell that Murray was expecting to win and was visibly upset about this.

2099net wrote:Who here wouldn't turn down tens of thousands of dollars for a couple of weeks in a voice recording studio?

If I was a millionaire, I wouldn't do parts 'just for the money' anymore. I would only do parts I really wanted to do. But that's just me.

Luke wrote:In fact, most Oscar winning/nominated pictures pay quite little, at least that is if you're a big star who believes in a small project's prospects, you're going to take a pay cut to see it made.

You believe that? Not all pictures that get nominated/win an Oscar are 'small' arthouse productions, you know (Titanic, anyone?). And let's not forget we were talking about Morgan Freeman, who already *had* done blockbuster material before he was in Batman Begins, so that's just a lame excuse --if it's true, because I haven't seen any confirmation.

In regards to Morgan Freeman's decison to do Batman Begins......

http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/feat ... reeman.asp

UGO: I read that you did Batman Begins for the money.

MORGAN: Yeah [laughs], but it does look very promising. I worked on it about a week. I didn't even know who Lucius Fox was. You ever heard of Lucius Fox?

The interview I read, however many years past, he gave more detail about doing it for the money and why.

Goliath wrote: You believe that? Not all pictures that get nominated/win an Oscar are 'small' arthouse productions, you know (Titanic, anyone?). And let's not forget we were talking about Morgan Freeman, who already *had* done blockbuster material before he was in Batman Begins, so that's just a lame excuse --if it's true, because I haven't seen any confirmation.

You're mentioning Titanic? Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were hardly big stars at the time, so probably wouldn't be paid millions.
People are just greedy, that's it. Most businessmen don't stop when they earned a million, they keep on making money. Also, do you ever consider that these people just love to do it. And if they can get paid with millions of dollars while doing some of those acting jobs, why not? I know I would.

KubrickFan wrote:Also, do you ever consider that these people just love to do it. And if they can get paid with millions of dollars while doing some of those acting jobs, why not? I know I would.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. I just think it's a bullshit excuse for a multimillionaire actor to say he "needed" the money.

In regards to Murray's Garfield statements, and even his Oscar moment, if you have ever seen him doing interviews you should know that he is always joking and half of what he says, if not more, is just for a laugh, whether it gets one or not. Frankly, I find him and Steve Martin to be two of the most truly genuinely funny guys out there, say, compared to Chevy Chase, who I can enjoy greatly but really needs good writers behind him. That's not to say Bill Murray or Steve Martin are funny every second. Sometimes you're going to hit a sour note with more people rather than less (though you're always going to hit a sour note with SOME amount of people). For me, his Garfield story is one of those sour notes, partly because I think for the most part those films are pretty good. The only thing that upset me about them was some of the characterizations, but Garfield remained the focus and I thought he was spot on. (What I didn't like: Nermal was totally wrong, Arlene looked like an adult version of what Nermal should have looked like, Jon wasn't written dorky enough and Liz shouldn't have liked him from the get-go, but I liked the casting and the story, and everything else, and the second film had fewer issues by not having Arlene and Nermal). Anyway, I don't believe for a second that Murray was tricked into doing Garfield, but I also don't think he expects ANYONE believes it. He was just joking, I suspect, and he may have done the sequel for the money, because he liked being Garfield, or because he simply signed on for any sequels. His little joke here and even in Zombieland was probably more a response to other people's comments to him about Garfield rather than personal feelings. Just theory, but it's what I think is most likely. It's like with Harrison Ford and Shia coming out and apologizing for Indy 4. If they were getting better feedback from the public, they likely would never have done that. And, frankly, while I can understand how some folks hate Garfield, I really think a lot of the Indy 4 hate is ridiculous. I'm with Angry Video Game Nerd that it was at least as good as Temple of Doom, which I also loved but don't hold as high as Raiders or Last Crusade by any means.

Goliath wrote: I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. I just think it's a bullshit excuse for a multimillionaire actor to say he "needed" the money.

Where did they say that they needed the money? They just did it because it's an easy paycheck, and admitted that. Nobody's saying they're on the verge of being broke. If they're offered a part for a couple of millions, why shouldn't they accept it?

slave2moonlight wrote: Jon wasn't written dorky enough

I think at least that's mentioned somewhere on the DVD. It's certainly on the PSP version.

ajmrowland wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote: Jon wasn't written dorky enough

I think at least that's mentioned somewhere on the DVD. It's certainly on the PSP version.

Really? Who mentioned it?

one of the filmmakers said they didnt want to make Jon as geeky as the comic, for whatever reason. I assume it's to make him more relatable to the masses than anything.

Oh, ha. Your post had somehow led me to believe you meant that they sort of confessed they made a mistake there. Seemed unlikely, but that's how I read your post.

ajmrowland wrote:one of the filmmakers said they didnt want to make Jon as geeky as the comic, for whatever reason. I assume it's to make him more relatable to the masses than anything.

Cute. That's the answer. They wanted a cute guy.

And Liz too. I'm sure someone's already mentioned her. Do you guys remember her? She was very sardonic, always in a bad mood. Even if they altered her eyes with CGI and made her take weird drugs to make her more like Paris Hilton (slow), there's no way Jennifer Love Hewitt could ever be the Liz character from the original Garfield.