MovieChat Forums > Man on the Moon (1999) Discussion > ed norton would have been better

ed norton would have been better

posted 16 years ago by stephan_la_bize
22 replies | jump to latest

I have always been a big kaufman fan... so weird, so different, so... *beep* spaced out!!!

Ive just watched "man on the moon" for the 3rd or 4th times and somehting struck me... ed norton would have been perfect for this ... in fact, having jim carrey portray kaufman ... just doesnt work fo me... I cant see andy... physically, norton looks more like him than carrey... Im not saying that carrey sucked (hes a really good actor) but norton would have been much better for this....

the film s still great but i just dont see kaufman....

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] UtopianUK 16 years ago

I thought Jim Carrey was perfect as Kaufman. I strongly feel that Ed Norton wouldn't have been right for the part. I can't see how Norton would have looked or felt right in role. That is something I can't imagine working.

Away from discussing the lead, I really enjoyed everything about the movie. It's definitely in my top50 movies.

[–] Blunic3 16 years ago

Stop with this Ed Norton *beep* Carrey's performance was great and has that edge that Norton would have never brought to it. Edward Norton is a good actor, but not that great. Stop perpetuating the myth that he is one of the best of his generation. The only film that made me realize where all the praise was coming from was American History X. His performance there is incredible. Other than that, however, he's been good here and there and bad in others. Have you seen the Score? Imagine how bad the movie would have been if Eddie tried that on Man on the Moon. That's it for now. Thank You.

[–] joeyestcool 16 years ago

Ed Norton could nail any role.

but Jim Carrey nailed this one.

[–] mfoley84 16 years ago

I loved Jim Carrey's performance and was one of the most vocal about his lack of a nomination on part of the AMPAS.

However, I could see why Milos Forman would have wanted Norton.

He and Edward know each other very well, they worked on 'People vs. Larry Flynt' and Norton cast Forman in his directorial debut "Keeping the Faith".

Face it, (no pun intended btw) Norton looks ALOT like Kaufman---actually moreso rather than Jim Carrey.

But that's ok. Because of Jim Carrey's box office appeal, it made sense why
they'd cast him over Norton.

While Ed Norton is respected as an actor and can be really gritty, his movies weren't blockbusters.

Bottom line, I would've been just fine with either one, both were inspired choices.

I also think Carrey won out because he idolized Andy Kaufman so much.

[–] Mr_Happy_Pantz 16 years ago

Words cannot express how off the mark I think you are, balboa.

[–] mfoley84 16 years ago

"Words cannot express how off the mark I think you are, balboa."

Are you done?

Listen, you're entitled to your opinion....

Just as much as the manner in which you're doing so, I'm entitled to calling you out on your being a jerk.

Now if you were to say you didn't agree and provide just a hint explaining why, they that wouldn't be being a jerk. That's called a friendly debate.

Thanks for playing.

[–] jcoc_ap204 13 years ago

So true and definitely proven with Primal Fear.

[–] crosrd45 15 years ago

I disagree, after seeing Norton's work I doubt he could have pulled off this person/"character".....its too out there for him. I think Carrey did an amazing job of giving an accurate portrayal of an extremely gifted and bizarre person. Norton may have been able to do the basic Kaufman, but I doubt he could have pulled off ALL of Kaufman

[–] Father_Anthonis 15 years ago

Whats so big about Ed Norton anyway??? I love AHX and is indeed a good actor even over Jim and I have seen and been watching all Jims movies since I was a kid. But Man I always think of him with the little puny beard/goatee and can't think of him without YES I have seen him clean shaven but don't think he looks like Kaufman as much as Carrey. Simply put I can only imagine Jim in this role EVEN if it was before the movie and they were just brainstorming.

Dark Knight is the worst movie ever, The villain died before it even came out.

[–] MaouriCeltic 13 years ago

The problem with Carrey is that it feels that he is almost doing schtict as opposed to a performance. Something more nuanced and developed from Norton would have made this film much better...

[–] harlowfan 15 years ago

the film s still great but i just dont see kaufman....

I agree, I just see a really big Kaufman fan doing a really good impression.

That is.. I agree with the second part of what you said. I think the film stank. After the scene with Kaufman's granddaughter playing his sister, it was all downhill.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SexyBrazilian_Muse 12 years ago

Maybe it's just me but I do not see Norton as Kaufman at all not even in looks. The movie photo of Jim as Kaufman was spot on to me and reminded me of days of watching Taxi. I've seen most of Norton's films and besides American History X, I've never really liked him as an actor. His acting in the movie The Italian Job solidified my dislike for him. Something in his voice, the way he talks really turns me off, its like talking to someone annoying on the street. Just my opinion of him though. I love him as a person but as an actor he never really did it for me.

[–] stetay1187 12 years ago

how do you know ed norton would be better?unless you have seen norton playing andy there is no way you can compare,dont get me wrong i think ed norton is a fantastic actor but theres no way you can say he would be better than another actor unless you have seen them act that part,btw i thought jim carrey really nailed it