Did Sean Connery hate the KOTCS script?

Niteshade007 said:
You bring up a good point about a sign-off to his career. What's the challenge for an actor to play the same character for his final film, and have it be a cameo at that?

Be involved in a pile of rubbish films, have a few years in the wilderness and then get a chance to sign off with a cameo returning a career-high-point character in a bone-fide potential blockbuster of historical proportions. Sounds decent enough for me. Especially if one critically evaluates his career as an ´actor´.
 

Niteshade007

New member
I bet you're his biggest fan, lol.

As I understand them, actors are all about challenging themselves creatively. That's what most say anyway. I mean, even Keira Knightly says she doesn't want to do blockbusters anymore because they don't challenge her talent enough. I want to tell her that her talent is looking good and talking through her teeth when she wants to show emotion, but who am I to judge?

Maybe Sir Sean feels the same way. It wouldn't be a challenge to play the same character.

Just one of the possible reasons.
 

deckard24

New member
I agree Connery is pretty overrated as an actor. Was he the epitome of cool back in the day, absolutely! But, he has made a career of playing pretty much the same character in every film. There's not much of a stretch in any of his work, so why he wouldn't want to go out on a high note to mark the end of his career, with a role in one of the most anticipated films of all time baffles me.

Ego was mentioned earlier and that could be it, but like I said before that same ego could prompt him to agree to an ultra secret surprise cameo that Spielberg promised would bring down the house. Yeah it's all spectulation, but I still think there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around this film and Spielberg is going to pull out a few suprises.
 

loganbush

New member
Yeah it's all spectulation, but I still think there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around this film and Spielberg is going to pull out a few suprises.

Definitely. I think there could be a lot we've heard about that is totally wrong or they might change.
 

No Ticket

New member
StwongBwidge said:
I think its more a question of ego. They offered him what was effectively a cameo role and he wanted more - despite the character being 85 in 1957. There was no way this could be changed and he wouldn´t go with it.

Remember, he was reluctant to do LC because they had him playing the doddery dad of a bloke only 12 years his junior - even though they easily looked 25 years apart at the time. The guy has an exceptionally large ego and wouldn´t go with playing a bit-part, even though he should have been grateful to have this as some kind of sign-off to a much-overrated career.

Don´t over-play his credibility - the guy´s an apparent dyed-in-the-wool Scottish Nationalist who has chosen to live anywhere but Scotland for 35 years or more. Go figure.

I think that is the most dead-on estimation on the reasoning behind his decision. I didn't think about it like that, but I'd say that more than anything... this is probably the reason he would turn it down.

And I really think it is kind of a disservice for him to only make a cameo. The story doesn't really NEED him, it would only be one of those "hey remember the older movies" moments. We already have enough of that with Marion and "possibly," the ark. Which I really hope is not in it.
 

Darth Vile

New member
I doubt it had anything to do with the quality of the script (as already mentioned in previous posts). It's possible that Connery wasn't interested in the part because it was nothing more than an extended cameo. Personally speaking, I would have liked to have seen Connery reprise his role, but I wouldn't have wanted the character involved in the meat of the story/adventure.
 
Since I'm pretty sure it would've been Broadbent's part that was supposed to be played by Connery/Henry Sr., I'm sure it wasn't the script who repelled Connery... he's made really bad movies in the past, so no excuses here ;-)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Laserschwert said:
Since I'm pretty sure it would've been Broadbent's part that was supposed to be played by Connery/Henry Sr., I'm sure it wasn't the script who repelled Connery... he's made really bad movies in the past, so no excuses here ;-)

That's my view too i.e. He would have been more or less filling the Broadbent role. So it would have been nice... but it's clearly not as fundamental as the part in TLC.
 

WeAreGoingToDie

New member
Connery being in KOTCS as the film is now would have been not only unnecessary, but also would spoil much of Indy's motivation. Had Indy had a dad, he wouldn't be depressed and craving a family as he was at the intro of Skull. After the warehouse scene, he'd probably consult with his dad and Henry Sr. would assist him in an adventure (and we'd have a rehash of TLC plus a young kid).
 

The Man

Well-known member
When Connery rejected Georgie's advances, did Lucas kill Henry Sr. off in a huff..? Hmmm...

Also, to have Sean's wonderful contribution to The Last Crusade 'memorialised' with "...Somewhere, your Grandpa is smiling..." was a disgusting atrocity.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
torao said:
(Whatever his reasons not to be in IndyIV were, I think that his absence created one of the best and most crucial moments of the film. And yet I would like to see what his part in the earlier Koepp draft looked like.)

I'm with you there...shame we didn't get the Broadbent scene in full, with the "who will they say I was?" dialogue and the extra bit about Mac being as good as dead.

Of course, The Man's right on his point too, though one feel they have to refer to Jones, Sr. somehow near the end. (There were better ways, though I'm not struck by any. Not sleeping will do that to you.)
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
It's interesting those of you who think that Broadbent's character was a replacement for Henry Sr. I think Stanforth was always in the script, though thinking about it maybe the scene in Indy's house would have been Connery instead of Broadbent.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
It's interesting those of you who think that Broadbent's character was a replacement for Henry Sr. I think Stanforth was always in the script, though thinking about it maybe the scene in Indy's house would have been Connery instead of Broadbent.

That's what I was thinking... Of course Stanforth is obviously more of a straight replacement for Brody than he is for Henry Jones Senior, but there is some cross over.
 

sandiegojones

New member
I just think the Connery's part was too small for him to do it. Plus him, Mutt, marion and Ox is too much if they are going on an adventure.
 

UltimateManGod

New member
Sankara said:
@the man
Oh yes... and short round is the driver of the wedding-car... *LOL*...

Because Indy woudn't want his own father to be at his wedding. That makes a lot of sense. Though I will agree, it would have been stupid to have Shorty the wedding car driver.
 
Top