Filmstalker: Connery lost $225million on Gandalf

Sean Connery apparently lost GB£225 million when he said no to Gandalf. Yes, according to Peter Jackson he was offered, apart from a small fee, somewhere between 10 and 25 percent of the box office takings. If he had accepted it would have been the largest earnings of an actor from a single role in history...ever!

According to The Scotsman:

Sir Sean turned the offer down as he did not understand the complicated plot of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy masterpiece...
...The three films in the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring (2000), The Two Towers (2001) and The Return of the King (2002), earned a total of £1.5 billion at the box office, which would have meant the former Bond actor would have earned between £150 million and £225 million.

The fee would have dwarfed the £23 million earned by Jack Nicholson under a similar deal for his role as The Joker in Batman, released in 1989.

Frankly that's incredible. The revelation comes from Jackson's new biography A Film-Maker's Journey by Brian Sibley.

Mr Jackson explained: "I felt Gandalf would take on a Sean Connery persona, with a long beard and robe."
Last year Sir Sean explained his decision to turn down the role: "Yeah, well, I never understood it. I read the book, I read the script, I saw the movie. I still don't understand it. I would be interested in doing something that I don't fully understand, but not for eighteen months."

The author seems to think that Connery would have brought a different charisma and strength to the role. I disagree and turn towards Jackson's comment. I think that Connery would have overpowered the role and it would have become another Connery character, not Gandalf. It would have been a horrible decision by New Line, and just shows what rubbish choices they can make.

What do you think, good idea, bad idea? Could Connery have pulled off the role, or was the perfect choice made?

Add a comment

Your Name:

Your Email:

Your URL:

Remember my details?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Site Navigation

Promotion

Comments

IMHO, Sir Ian Mckellen was PERFECT as Gandalf, I still couldnt see another actor, even if someone of Sean Connery's magnitude doing it. No offense there because I love Connery. Sure an actor is an actor is an actor, any other can make a role their own, but look at how Craig proved them all wrong, he was going against type, to a LOT of James Bond purists, he simply didnt look Bond but look what he has done, people are coming out and saying, he could be the best Bond after Sean Connery. The same goes for the LotR characters, it's like the role of Aragorn, Viggo Mortensen was just perfect for that part, it's a shame that he will always be remembered for that role unless he does more meaty and varied roles in the future.

Posted by: Simone | November 25, 2006 2:55 PM

I'm finding it difficult to be objective about this. I have a major bias when it comes to Connery. Put him in any role and I'll declare the perfomance stunning. He could have been cast as Galadriel and I still would have thought it was a brilliant choice.

But to be honest, Sir Ian Mckellen really was the Gandalf I always imagined when I read the books. It's not hard for me to picture Connery in the part, but I'm torn as to which I'd prefer.

Posted by: ISO100 | November 25, 2006 5:42 PM

The most incredible part of the story is the claim that Connery didn't understand the plot. I can't believe he's that dense.

Posted by: James Russell | November 27, 2006 6:19 AM

That's what I thought James. How could he not understand it?

Posted by: Richard Brunton | November 27, 2006 7:59 AM

Maybe it's the polite way to say, "No, I am not interested."

Posted by: Simone | November 27, 2006 10:02 AM

Ian Mckellen did a great job, but I would have been just as happy to see Sean Connery, he does have majesty about him that few other working actors today do.

A lot of authors produce tales that are highly allegorical, so one should be careful dismissing the idea that someone did not fully understand a piece of writing. Just because the overlaying tale is one which seems simple, it does not mean that the story is not a lot more complex. Swift being the obvious example, sure any child can see the overlaying tale, but that does not mean they fully understand Swifts literary intentions.

Posted by: B.I.T.H | November 27, 2006 12:08 PM

Actually, the foreword in LotR clearly states that the story is in no way allegorical. Tolkien despised allegory.

Posted by: ISO100 | November 28, 2006 12:52 AM

You guys must be kidding?

For starters IF the character was complex(and he sure as hell isn't, mage with a stick anyone?) then he could easily have got one of his many minions to explain it to him.

And Mckellen is by far a better actor, connery would have ruined the films by doing what he normally does.

Apply thick scottish accent, overact and shout when you feel you lack the acting ability.

Basically boils down to him being to lazy to put commitment into the role.

Posted by: pablo | November 28, 2006 6:06 AM