Tim Robbins too old!

Yeah, he's too old, sure. But his attitude is very much that of a 19-year-old, and comes through and kinda makes up for it. It's also fun to still watch because this is where this (until recently) very long-lasting couple first hooked up, and it's fun to see the chemistry. (Although she and Kevin Costner had even more chemistry, so there ya go.)

Looking through IMDb's lists of popular celebrities from 1965 through 1969 (the movie was filmed in the fall of 1987, so someone born in 1970 would only have been 17 and a little too young), I think you just about nailed it with Affleck and McConaughey. They would have been able to play the goofball dumb jock very convincingly.

1965 - Robert Downey could have stolen this part. He was an active actor back then, and was quite manic with all the drugs he was doing. Yeah, he could have made it work. Maybe not quite athletic enough at the time though. I think he bulked up as he got older for Iron Man. Ben Stiller is similar, has the wild excitement, short, but was always pretty athletic. Charlie Sheen proved his baseball and psycho chops the very next year in Major League, so two big thumbs up for him. John C. Reilly could definitely play goofy, but he's nowhere near as good-looking as Robbins. Jeremy Piven was active at the time, but doesn't give off an athlete vibe. Chris Rock could play crazy, but he'd make it into a different movie.

Notably, Adam Sandler was born in 1966, and he too would have been excellent in the role. He is very athletic. Tim Robbins' buddy John Cusack is 1966 as well, and would have done well in the role - AND was actually an active actor at the time. I see Rainn Wilson and Diedrich Bader there as well, who also could have had some fun with the role.

In 67 you've got Will Ferrell, who would have made this into an entirely different movie, so, no, not him. Phillip Seymour Hoffman? Great actor, but "Let it rain!" would not have really worked here. Matt LeBlanc would have been good - didn't he do some stupid baseball movie? Harry Connick might have been able to play it, too.

68: Hugh Jackman? Definitely athletic enough, but he's an Aussie, and I don't think they really "get" baseball. Will Smith? Yeah, well, but it would definitely be a different movie, like with Ferrell, due to his constant wisecracking. Sam Rockwell - now there's a fun choice! Also a very different movie, though. Josh Brolin coulda pulled it off. Anthony-Michael Hall - wow! That would be weird! Sure, he was active at the time, but I would be constantly thinking about Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club. No way! Brendan Fraser could have done it, though. Owen Wilson - hmmm, no.

Finally, 69: Paul Rudd, Edward Norton, Jason Bateman - hell, no. Not goofy enough. Jack Black - waaaay too goofy, and doesn't quite fit the athletic look. Same for Zach Galifianakis. Matthew Perry mighta made it work. Javier Bardem would have changed the entire tone of the movie.

Hey, that was kind of fun! Thanks for "making" me do this!




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

SOme players can still be in the Major Leagues by then, and if you have a problem with Tim Robbins being 30 when this movie made came out, how about Kevin Costner, and even still neither one would have been famous and I am sure that they wante somebody that was a bigger name for the role.

I believed he was young by his acting. I didn't look his age up the first time I saw the film. He exuded youthfulness. He acted the part. He was dim and arrogant.

Needless focus on his age. Actors are not married to playing their legal age in films. Anyone who looks at an actor and imposes knowledge like that on their judgment of them is also playing a strange meta game.

He's clearly not his real life age in the movie. He could pass for younger and looked early 20's

Well, hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?

Imagine watching this movie in 1988. No IMDB, no Wikipedia, and you have no clue of Tim Robbins' real age. Would you have believed him, based purely on his PERFORMANCE, not what you happen to know about his personal life? I believed his performance.

As for McConaughey of Affleck, again, hindsight is 20/20. In 1987 when this film was getting made, both guys were nothing - high school kids still 5 years away from their first film appearances. You say Robbins was too old, but you don't think too young would have been equally unconvincing? Robbins was only unconvincing because you KNOW his age and it clouds your judgement. His actual performance was pitch perfect (pardon the pun).

Who could have been a better choice? While I think Robbins was truly excellent, the only other actor who comes to mind - who was viable in 1987 - is John Cusack.




Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

Damn, I didn't realize Robbins was around 30 when he filmed this and that Costner is only 3 years older than Robbins in real life. I thought Robbins was believable as an immature guy in his early 20s (his pitching form isn't too convincing though lol).

I thought Robbins was younger and I'm used to Hollywood having people play much younger character, so this didn't bother me. It wasn't like Stockard Channing playing a teenager in Grease,

It never occurred to me at all. He had a baby face at that time, he was perfect in the role.

He looked like he was in his early 20s in the movie. Only way someone would know he was 30 is if he/she looked it up on google.