It looks like I beat you by 2 minutes George. I was actually viewing some other Oscar trivia (Lawrence of Arabia) at the time I checked the post so it registered with me pretty quickly.
Henry Fonda was looking for a project where he could star with son Peter and daughter Jane. But when On Golden Pond showed up, there was no significant role for Peter. He could have played a mailman or something, but chose to stay out of it. Henry starred opposite Katherine Hepburn. Both won Oscars for their roles but were not in good health to attend the ceremony. Jane was nominated but did not win. She accepted the award for her father (satellite video showed his reaction).
On Golden Pond did not win Best Picture that year. The honor went to Chariots of Fire. Good luck getting the music out of your head now.
Henry Fonda's final role was for a TV movie called Summer Solstice.
OK. It took the director more than 12 years to develop this film. He had only one actor in mind to do the lead role. That actor took 6 years "to think about it" but declined. After another actor took the role, he did extensive research, reading over 20 books and doing research, visiting many historical sites and even gaining exclusive access to personal items of the iconic character he was to play. However, he dropped out after 4 years citing he was too old for the part and that his wife had recently passed away. The original choice for the part that the director had in mind was convinced by a friend to give it another shot.
And a good guess I suppose. I've never seen that. But no.
11 hours ago, Human without the bean said:
OK. It took the director more than 12 years to develop this film. He had only one actor in mind to do the lead role. That actor took 6 years "to think about it" but declined. After another actor took the role, he did extensive research, reading over 20 books and doing research, visiting many historical sites and even gaining exclusive access to personal items of the iconic character he was to play. However, he dropped out after 4 years citing he was too old for the part and that his wife had recently passed away. The original choice for the part that the director had in mind was convinced by a friend to give it another shot.
What movie am I?
The actor in mind for the title role was convinced to give it another shot and took it with one condition that he didn't start for a year. His eventual co-star who plays his wife had to beg the director to give her a screening because she was told she wouldn't be right for the part. When the director agreed the lead actor flew 3000 miles just to do the scene with her. She got the part.
Did the "12 years to develop this film" include the 6 years one actor thought about it and the 4 years the other thought about it, and the extra year for the first actor, or was the total more than 20 years?
Did the "12 years to develop this film" include the 6 years one actor thought about it and the 4 years the other thought about it, and the extra year for the first actor, or was the total more than 20 years?
George
No you got the 12 years right. First actor took six then the other four and then the year.
On 5/26/2020 at 10:34 PM, Human without the bean said:
OK. It took the director more than 12 years to develop this film. He had only one actor in mind to do the lead role. That actor took 6 years "to think about it" but declined. After another actor took the role, he did extensive research, reading over 20 books and doing research, visiting many historical sites and even gaining exclusive access to personal items of the iconic character he was to play. However, he dropped out after 4 years citing he was too old for the part and that his wife had recently passed away. The original choice for the part that the director had in mind was convinced by a friend to give it another shot.
What movie am I?
The actor in mind for the title role was convinced to give it another shot and took it with one condition that he didn't start for a year. His eventual co-star who plays his wife had to beg the director to give her a screening because she was told she wouldn't be right for the part. When the director agreed the lead actor flew 3000 miles just to do the scene with her. She got the part.
The film came very close to being released on HBO cinema according to the director, the only reason it reached theaters was that he co-owned one the major motion picture studios.
After the principle actor decided on the voice he was to use for the iconic role he send an audio tape to the director with a skull and crossbones on the box so only he would be the first to hear it.
Interesting. That the principal actor would "use a voice" might imply a cartoon, but then there would be no reason for the other actor to believe he was "too old" for the part.
Interesting. That the principal actor would "use a voice" might imply a cartoon, but then there would be no reason for the other actor to believe he was "too old" for the part.
Hmmm...
George
Turn around George, you're going in the wrong direction. The above is only meant to imply that the voice the actor choice to use for his role was a key part of how the character was built up and sent to the director so he could use it for direction.
On 5/29/2020 at 9:40 PM, Human without the bean said:
OK. It took the director more than 12 years to develop this film. He had only one actor in mind to do the lead role. That actor took 6 years "to think about it" but declined. After another actor took the role, he did extensive research, reading over 20 books and doing research, visiting many historical sites and even gaining exclusive access to personal items of the iconic character he was to play. However, he dropped out after 4 years citing he was too old for the part and that his wife had recently passed away. The original choice for the part that the director had in mind was convinced by a friend to give it another shot.
What movie am I?
The actor in mind for the title role was convinced to give it another shot and took it with one condition that he didn't start for a year. His eventual co-star who plays his wife had to beg the director to give her a screening because she was told she wouldn't be right for the part. When the director agreed the lead actor flew 3000 miles just to do the scene with her. She got the part.
The film came very close to being released on HBO cinema according to the director, the only reason it reached theaters was that he co-owned one the major motion picture studios.
After the principle actor decided on the voice he was to use for the iconic role he send an audio tape to the director with a skull and crossbones on the box so only he would be the first to hear it.
During the three and a half months filming the director addressed his actors in character because he felt in doing so he would experience the role and he felt that both he and the cast were recreating a piece of history. He also stepped away from his trademark casual Friday attire and came to work every day in a suit and tie.
Edited by Human without the bean keep it simple so players can tell what I'm describing
OK. It took the director more than 12 years to develop this film. He had only one actor in mind to do the lead role. That actor took 6 years "to think about it" but declined. After another actor took the role, he did extensive research, reading over 20 books and doing research, visiting many historical sites and even gaining exclusive access to personal items of the iconic character he was to play. However, he dropped out after 4 years citing he was too old for the part and that his wife had recently passed away. The original choice for the part that the director had in mind was convinced by a friend to give it another shot.
What movie am I?
The actor in mind for the title role was convinced to give it another shot and took it with one condition that he didn't start for a year. His eventual co-star who plays his wife had to beg the director to give her a screening because she was told she wouldn't be right for the part. When the director agreed the lead actor flew 3000 miles just to do the scene with her. She got the part.
The film came very close to being released on HBO cinema according to the director, the only reason it reached theaters was that he co-owned one the major motion picture studios.
After the principle actor decided on the voice he was to use for the iconic role he send an audio tape to the director with a skull and crossbones on the box so only he would be the first to hear it.
During the three and a half months filming the director addressed his actors in character because he felt in doing so he would experience the role and he felt that both he and the cast were recreating a piece of history. He also stepped away from his trademark casual Friday attire and came to work every day in a suit and tie.
A few fill in the blanks for this. I don't know if it will help or not.
The alternate actor and not the directors' first choice for the main role was Liam Neeson. The actor who helped convince the lead actor to give it another chance was Leonardo DeCaprio. I'm running out of clues.
The lead actor said if he won the Oscar he would retire for five years. He won and then he retired for five years.
There is enough clues here I feel to solve the trivia question. The director owns a share of a major motion picture studio. The lead actor won an Oscar for best actor. The director felt like addressing the cast by using their character names would help him experience what he and they thought were re-creating a piece of history. An added bonus and because today is 6/4/20 it might be worth saying that Liam Neeson was 6' 4'' tall. George lets just say the time period of this iconic role and picture was somewhere in between the Bronze Age and the New Age. Answering this will probably give it away and I'm already trying to do that.
To quote Regis Philbin, it's only easy if you know the answer. Some other people have noted it's easy if you know exactly what's a real clue and what's fluff.
You mentioned it was a real person role, and the actor handled some things of the person. So, that should eliminate, say, Alexander the Great and that time-frame because their personal items would have been lost to time. So, with MULTIPLE items, it was probably sometime since, say, the 1600s. So, the signing of the Declaration of Independence or thereabouts.
The audition tape had a skull and crossbones on it. That strongly suggests some kind of pirate film, or some kind of pirate role (or some role where they had a name like "Poison" or something like that.
The director wore a suit and tie. That suggests a movie where people wear suits and ties.
The movie includes Leonardo di Caprio, and another male lead- who had a bigger role than di Caprio.
I can't think of a pirate flick with di Caprio, nor one which was a biopic. Di Caprio wore a suit in "The Great Gatsby", but he was the title role and there was no male lead in front of him. Plus, it was based on a novel, a work of fiction.
With di Caprio, and a suit and tie, I could try "The Wolf of Wall Street", but di Caprio was the title role again.
So, movie with suits co-starring di Caprio, and with pirates, that was a biopic.
I've got nothing,
I don't think your clues are as much of a slam-dunk as you think they are. Perhaps I haven't seen this movie. Perhaps one or more clues is pointing in the wrong direction and you didn't mean to.
No it doesn't I never said that. I said Leo de Caprio encouraged the lead actor to think about taking the role again.
19 minutes ago, WordWolf said:
I don't think your clues are as much of a slam-dunk as you think they are.
I didn't say they were a slam-dunk WordWolf. I said there was enough there to solve the trivia question, or at least warrant a few guesses.
23 minutes ago, WordWolf said:
The audition tape had a skull and crossbones on it.
I guess I could look more deeply into this but I don't know the significance of it, only as I had said, the actor wanted the voice he chose to do for the role to be heard first by the director.
Perhaps one or more clues is pointing in the wrong direction and you didn't mean to.
No I don't think so. Everything I've posted is either taken from IMDB or Wikipedia. I've not thrown in any of my own personal evaluation through-out any of my posts. Liam Neeson is 6' 4" its a fact. He touched artifacts. But he wasn't the actor who played the part. He quit after a lengthy period of time and his wife (actress Natashe Richardson ) died in a skiing accident. The Oscar winning actor did retire from movies for five years after the film. He came back for one more movie and then retired for good.
I've been waiting for another comment......however that's not happening. I thought that my last clue about Liam Neeson's height would have sprung an idea. Lincoln is the movie that director Steven Spielberg took 12 years to develop. After 10 years of development Spielberg decided that he would only do Lincoln if Daniel Day Lewis took the role. Daniel Day Lewis won his third Best Actor Oscar and then retired but came back after five years (2017) to do his final film (Phantom Thread) before retiring again. Abraham Lincoln was 6' 4" tall. I didn't want to give the time period because I felt it would have been too revealing. Speilberg addressed Day Lewis as "Mr. President, Sally Field as Mary or by her childhood nickname Molly and others by their character names.
Until I post something if someone wants to take this go ahead.
This movie was 170 minutes long. The f-word and derivatives of it appear 226 times. Interestingly, this isn't the record, even among major motion pictures.
When the director submitted the film to the MPAA, they gave it an "X rating". He then made some cuts and resubmitted it a second time; again the film was given an "X rating" (one of the reasons apparently being that a character was shot too many times). He yet again made some further cuts and submitted it a third time; yet again it was given an "X". The director refused to cut the film any further to qualify it for an R. He and the producer arranged a hearing with the MPAA. They brought in a panel of experts, including real narcotics officers, who stated that not only was the film an accurate portrayal of real life in the drug underworld, but ultimately it was an anti-drug film, and should be widely seen. This convinced the arbitrators that the third submitted cut of the film deserved an "R rating" by a vote of 18-2. However, the director surmised that if the third cut of the film was judged an "R" then the very first cut should have been an "R" as well, to which the MPAA disagreed. However, since he believed the studio execs wouldn't know the differences between the different cuts that had been submitted,he released the first cut of the film to theaters anyway, confessing to the fact only after its home video release several months later.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
958
519
988
263
Popular Days
Oct 12
17
May 25
15
May 12
14
May 8
12
Top Posters In This Topic
GeorgeStGeorge 958 posts
Raf 519 posts
WordWolf 988 posts
Human without the bean 263 posts
Popular Days
Oct 12 2018
17 posts
May 25 2021
15 posts
May 12 2014
14 posts
May 8 2014
12 posts
Popular Posts
Human without the bean
Why didn't you say that 2 days ago Mr. Wolf? Your right Rottie, They are pretty good. Makes it tough on me to get my 2 cents in.
Human without the bean
I was way off going with "The Terminal", except that it didn't have any articles of clothing in the title. I assume WordWolf is correct, but I'm not familiar with it. But that's not unusual.
GeorgeStGeorge
Stallone. Also well-known for reprising his Rocky role. I can't see him in Eddie Murphy's role in BHC, though... George
Posted Images
GeorgeStGeorge
I think Human might have beat me at the buzzer.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
It looks like I beat you by 2 minutes George. I was actually viewing some other Oscar trivia (Lawrence of Arabia) at the time I checked the post so it registered with me pretty quickly.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Henry Fonda was looking for a project where he could star with son Peter and daughter Jane. But when On Golden Pond showed up, there was no significant role for Peter. He could have played a mailman or something, but chose to stay out of it. Henry starred opposite Katherine Hepburn. Both won Oscars for their roles but were not in good health to attend the ceremony. Jane was nominated but did not win. She accepted the award for her father (satellite video showed his reaction).
On Golden Pond did not win Best Picture that year. The honor went to Chariots of Fire. Good luck getting the music out of your head now.
Henry Fonda's final role was for a TV movie called Summer Solstice.
He died a month after the Oscar ceremony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Human, you're up
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
OK. It took the director more than 12 years to develop this film. He had only one actor in mind to do the lead role. That actor took 6 years "to think about it" but declined. After another actor took the role, he did extensive research, reading over 20 books and doing research, visiting many historical sites and even gaining exclusive access to personal items of the iconic character he was to play. However, he dropped out after 4 years citing he was too old for the part and that his wife had recently passed away. The original choice for the part that the director had in mind was convinced by a friend to give it another shot.
What movie am I?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Wild guess: Jefferson in Paris
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
And a good guess I suppose. I've never seen that. But no.
The actor in mind for the title role was convinced to give it another shot and took it with one condition that he didn't start for a year. His eventual co-star who plays his wife had to beg the director to give her a screening because she was told she wouldn't be right for the part. When the director agreed the lead actor flew 3000 miles just to do the scene with her. She got the part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Did the "12 years to develop this film" include the 6 years one actor thought about it and the 4 years the other thought about it, and the extra year for the first actor, or was the total more than 20 years?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
No you got the 12 years right. First actor took six then the other four and then the year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Interesting. That the principal actor would "use a voice" might imply a cartoon, but then there would be no reason for the other actor to believe he was "too old" for the part.
Hmmm...
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Turn around George, you're going in the wrong direction. The above is only meant to imply that the voice the actor choice to use for his role was a key part of how the character was built up and sent to the director so he could use it for direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Edited by Human without the beankeep it simple so players can tell what I'm describing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
What time period is this iconic role? Medieval, BC, 1800's, 1960's, etc.?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
I'd prefer not to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Well, you said you were running out of clues. I've run out of guesses.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
There is enough clues here I feel to solve the trivia question. The director owns a share of a major motion picture studio. The lead actor won an Oscar for best actor. The director felt like addressing the cast by using their character names would help him experience what he and they thought were re-creating a piece of history. An added bonus and because today is 6/4/20 it might be worth saying that Liam Neeson was 6' 4'' tall. George lets just say the time period of this iconic role and picture was somewhere in between the Bronze Age and the New Age. Answering this will probably give it away and I'm already trying to do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
To quote Regis Philbin, it's only easy if you know the answer. Some other people have noted it's easy if you know exactly what's a real clue and what's fluff.
You mentioned it was a real person role, and the actor handled some things of the person. So, that should eliminate, say, Alexander the Great and that time-frame because their personal items would have been lost to time. So, with MULTIPLE items, it was probably sometime since, say, the 1600s. So, the signing of the Declaration of Independence or thereabouts.
The audition tape had a skull and crossbones on it. That strongly suggests some kind of pirate film, or some kind of pirate role (or some role where they had a name like "Poison" or something like that.
The director wore a suit and tie. That suggests a movie where people wear suits and ties.
The movie includes Leonardo di Caprio, and another male lead- who had a bigger role than di Caprio.
I can't think of a pirate flick with di Caprio, nor one which was a biopic. Di Caprio wore a suit in "The Great Gatsby", but he was the title role and there was no male lead in front of him. Plus, it was based on a novel, a work of fiction.
With di Caprio, and a suit and tie, I could try "The Wolf of Wall Street", but di Caprio was the title role again.
So, movie with suits co-starring di Caprio, and with pirates, that was a biopic.
I've got nothing,
I don't think your clues are as much of a slam-dunk as you think they are. Perhaps I haven't seen this movie. Perhaps one or more clues is pointing in the wrong direction and you didn't mean to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
No it doesn't I never said that. I said Leo de Caprio encouraged the lead actor to think about taking the role again.
I didn't say they were a slam-dunk WordWolf. I said there was enough there to solve the trivia question, or at least warrant a few guesses.
I guess I could look more deeply into this but I don't know the significance of it, only as I had said, the actor wanted the voice he chose to do for the role to be heard first by the director.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
No I don't think so. Everything I've posted is either taken from IMDB or Wikipedia. I've not thrown in any of my own personal evaluation through-out any of my posts. Liam Neeson is 6' 4" its a fact. He touched artifacts. But he wasn't the actor who played the part. He quit after a lengthy period of time and his wife (actress Natashe Richardson ) died in a skiing accident. The Oscar winning actor did retire from movies for five years after the film. He came back for one more movie and then retired for good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
I've been waiting for another comment......however that's not happening. I thought that my last clue about Liam Neeson's height would have sprung an idea. Lincoln is the movie that director Steven Spielberg took 12 years to develop. After 10 years of development Spielberg decided that he would only do Lincoln if Daniel Day Lewis took the role. Daniel Day Lewis won his third Best Actor Oscar and then retired but came back after five years (2017) to do his final film (Phantom Thread) before retiring again. Abraham Lincoln was 6' 4" tall. I didn't want to give the time period because I felt it would have been too revealing. Speilberg addressed Day Lewis as "Mr. President, Sally Field as Mary or by her childhood nickname Molly and others by their character names.
Until I post something if someone wants to take this go ahead.
Edited by Human without the beanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
This movie was 170 minutes long. The f-word and derivatives of it appear 226 times. Interestingly, this isn't the record, even among major motion pictures.
When the director submitted the film to the MPAA, they gave it an "X rating". He then made some cuts and resubmitted it a second time; again the film was given an "X rating" (one of the reasons apparently being that a character was shot too many times). He yet again made some further cuts and submitted it a third time; yet again it was given an "X". The director refused to cut the film any further to qualify it for an R. He and the producer arranged a hearing with the MPAA. They brought in a panel of experts, including real narcotics officers, who stated that not only was the film an accurate portrayal of real life in the drug underworld, but ultimately it was an anti-drug film, and should be widely seen. This convinced the arbitrators that the third submitted cut of the film deserved an "R rating" by a vote of 18-2. However, the director surmised that if the third cut of the film was judged an "R" then the very first cut should have been an "R" as well, to which the MPAA disagreed. However, since he believed the studio execs wouldn't know the differences between the different cuts that had been submitted,he released the first cut of the film to theaters anyway, confessing to the fact only after its home video release several months later.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Sounds to me like a Brian De Palma film maybe like Scarface?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.