That's the story Kevin told in his new whathaveyou "Too Fat for 40". He goes so far as to call Bruce Willis "a monster".
Question: If a director allows themselves to be bullied, isn't that their own damn fault?
I think this movie would have sucked no matter what... but it's the director's fault. It is also the director's fault if he pisses off the lead actor that the studio has invested a lot of money into and causes him walk off the job.
Question (2 part): If you were invited to dinner by Willis and Smith but could only go to one, which dinner do you think you would have the most fun at and which one would you go to?
it's also the director's fault if he agrees to do a project with actors he is not sure if he can handle... i doubt a director could really tell jack nicholson, bruce willis, anthony hopkins etc. how they want them to act at this point, people go to movies to see them being them, not them trying to change their style to suit the director
kevin smith should probably stick to no name actors , after hearing about his bruce willis experience, I definitely would
The balls on Kevin Smith amaze me... Yes, the guy's a decent writer, but for him to go on the record and blame his lead actor for its failure is unprofessional. If your lead actor is being troublesome it's because he/she simply doesn't have respect for the director -- the one in charge. Smith should have had a better handle on his cast and set. Bottom line.
sharei think he has too much estrogen from being obese -- which is why he was unable to stand up to B. Willis -- he should probably see a hormone specialist, to get his thyroid and everything checked too
shareBruce Willis has a reputation as a hard working actor and has a history of huge hits, whereas Kevin Smith makes a lot of "niche" type movies with small cult followings. Judging from past track records, and the fact that I actually suffered through Mallrats, I'd say the blame lies on Kevin Smith and not Bruce Willis.
This movie was crap.
I think he should go back to using no name , first time actors who he can totally boss around -- Clerks I was awesome!!
shareBruce was just the wrong person for the part of this movie. He was probably still upset/shocked over how bad the last die hard was. Kevin smith knows comedy, but I guess when you have a lead actor being a total douchebag theres not much he could do.
shareOh yes, Die Hard 4 did so terrible. Maybe that's why they are doing a fifth one.
shareits like this:
bruce is still up on his high horse even though the only good movies hes ever done is the lethal wea...im sorry die hard movies,and therefore he thinks he knows best.but guess what,his career is pretty much gone,so doing kevin smith movies (since people thinks they are so awful) is showing pretty much that maybe he should get a reality check and stop being a diva.because bruce... -NOBODY CARES-.
i like some bruce movies,and i havent seen all that many kevin movies,but give kevin a break,he has directed about more movies than you will ever do so ..
Frankly. The way I always read into it was that the two simply butted heads right from the beginning (and this is from hearing only Smith's point of view). And when the director and main actor have problems, it's going to be trouble for everybody and in the end, the only thing that really results is crap.
share[deleted]
Die Hard 4 did so terrible
[deleted]
maybe, but honestly which director save spielberg/ridley scott/dead kubrick/scorsese (basically any one who already made great movies before willis became a star) will bruce willis respect? most hollywood directors for the last 15 years are guns for hire that churned out generic craps so it's not like willis is going to respect any other director if kevin smith wasn't hired.
shareThe balls on Kevin Smith amaze me... Yes, the guy's a decent writer, but for him to go on the record and blame his lead actor for its failure is unprofessional. If your lead actor is being troublesome it's because he/she simply doesn't have respect for the director -- the one in charge. Smith should have had a better handle on his cast and set. Bottom line.
Well, on one hand I agree with you. Smith's a decent writer, and a decent director... He's by no means one of the best, but is also far from the worst. At the same time, Willis is a great actor. He has done some amazing work in his lifetime... But he also has a bit of a reputation for being difficult to work with. The reason is he's a seasoned actor who's worked with some of the best directors still living. Smith is a self taught director who doesn't know all of the ins and outs of making a major motion picture, nor has he ever worked with an actor like Willis. I mean, yeah, there's Affleck, Damon, Carlin... but a lot of them came up the same way, working with rookie directors, so they're used to his style and they have a lot more patience.
I don't know if he actually blamed Willis for the movie being a failure... He did, however, kind of blame him for the movie not being funny. He made it clear that Willis wouldn't take direction, on something as simple as a facial expression or line delivery, and tends to seem like he's always phoning in his performances when working with younger director (Live Free Or Die Hard, for example). He feels, as long as he's been working, he shouldn't take notes from people much newer to the business.
I personally blame the studio. They selected Willis and Morgan as the leads, and really, they were not the best choices for the roles... How this script ended up on the Hollywood Black List to begin with is beyond me. Unless it was rewritten, or the actors decided to kind of just wing it for a lot of the scenes, it should've ended up a straight to video release staring Christian Slater and Martin Lawrence... Actually, that might've been better.
I think there is a lot of blame to be placed here... More than enough to go around. Bad script, bad casting, Willis not taking direction, Smith taking a job he clearly couldn't handle... No matter how you look at it, this movie was doomed to be bad.
@rynobro ,why would you blame the studio? kevin agreed to direct it, without even checking if bruce willis would be reading the lines the way he wanted them read (in pre production) , its his fault for expecting bruce willis to act like David Addison , not Bruce's, furthermore, its Kevin's fault when bruce willis isnt acting the way he wants him to act for not shutting the whole thing down. the director is always responsible for what he puts his name to
share[deleted]
Moped:
who FORCED kevin to sign up for movies where studios spend 37 million and expect total obedience out of the director in return???
[deleted]
I think you're poorly misinformed. A director takes a movie thinking they'll have some control on what they're putting out... But that's not always the case. Richard Donner only directed half of Superman 2 before the studio took it away from him because they decided, after beginning production, that they wanted to do the film a different way and it's not what he signed up for... Someone else finished shooting, someone else decided how the film should be edited, and his name is the only one attached. It happens all the time.
And if you'd read the end of my comment, I never said Smith was blameless... I just said he's not the only one responsible for the movie being crap.
The Director is not always responsible when it comes to studio movies with a good sized budget and a huge A list star. Sorry, big stars do not always listen to directors. The A list star is getting paid more than the director and they are the draw and thus have far more power over how the movie goes. If it was a star director such as Spielberg or Scorsese than it would be different. Copout was a Bruce Willis movie far more than a Kevin Smith movie and thus Willis deserves the blame for it being sh*t far more than Smith.
shareI think this movie would have sucked no matter what... but it's the director's fault. It is also the director's fault if he pisses off the lead actor that the studio has invested a lot of money into and causes him walk off the job.
When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...share
After listening to "Tough Sh*t: Life Advice from a Fat, Lazy Slob Who Did Good" by Smith, it does sound like Bruce was a nightmare to work with. Supposedly after working on the set of the latest Die Hard, Smith (who had that minor role as Warlock) believed he had a good rapport with Bruce, who was allegedly problematic during that filming also. Once in the position of authority as Bruce's director he soon became the enemy.
share[deleted]
". . . Bruce . . . was allegedly problematic during that filming also."
i just watched this movie after watching Too Fat for 40.
i gotta say as much as i like Smith's films he isnt a very good director. the comments Willis made to him, like what lens is he using, were mostly in line. Smith SHOULD know these things. im surprised Willis was the first actor who actually expected Smith to know/do his job. Smith's movies also have a lot of filler BS that could be done away with. Willis's comments and actions were also probably exaggerated for comedic effect. remember that.
a film is always an ensemble project. the director is important but so are the actors. if the director doesnt know what they are doing it can hurt the project and people involved's image. with big stars, there is a lot more give and take with the director. the director cant just bark orders and expect everyone to be okay with everything. script changes are also not uncommon either.
Smith is a funny writer. he also is great with dialogue. he just sucks in the directors seat. 15 years and he couldnt identify what lens he wanted?! if he wasnt such a great writer, id be offended that was so rich from his movies. really hes been very spoiled with the projects hes gotten. but it sounded like he actually agreed with some of Willis's opinions (some he didnt). he even got Willis to reshoot and tell a line in the voice of one of his older characters. its not like Willis was entirely immovable. its just that Smith was out of his depth. personally, id prefer Smith focus on writing and give up the trying to direct thing.
agenericperson -
1. you dont go to a kevin smith movie for the cinematography (we dont care about the lenses he uses)
2. you dont go to a kevin smith movie for the fast past action and plot points
3. what you call "filler BS" is what you DO go to a kevin smith movie for -- the quirky and funny dialogue, the witty banter. the simple fact that bruce willis didn't EVEN know that about kevin smith's style (and dismissed it as "chuffa")shows that he never really watched clerks 1 or 2 or mallrats , and therefore MUCH of the blame lies squarely on Bruce Willis for accepting a job without first familiarizing himself with the Kevin's directorial style
I heard Willis wanted him to stop smoking weed while directing. After watching the film i think he should that advice. Smoke on your own time not while working.
shareIn an interview I saw on youtube Kevin mentioned he idolised Bruce Willis.
He never expected to deal with someone who did not wanted to be there
at all.No matter how great a director you are or what kind of authority
you have.If someone does not want to be there you can't force him or her
to do anything you like without a struggle or fight.Since movies do
have a time schedule I can imagine that is simply stress you don't need.
Also Bruce Willis is like a robot these days.Maybe he always has been but
I seen no passion at all in his acting.He is playing the same roles all in
the same manner.While he used to do more risky and different roles next to
his action ones.It does seem like Willis is doing it for the money and not the art.Which is a huge difference when it comes to Smith.He does it for the art or his love for films.
The CB Association
http://chrichtonsworld.blogspot.com/
If kevin smith did it for the art, then he should have been willing to fist fight bruce willis on the set , and lose badly if he had to, if he tried to mess with his movie, that's what a real director does
shareHe was pretty good in Looper.
shareAgreed... But I think it's because he was actually excited for the movie. He's even said there are movies that he takes for the money and some he takes because he's passionate about them. Cop Out was just a paycheck to him, and he really didn't care about how it ended up. Looper was a movie that he actually wanted to be a part of.
share[deleted]
Also Bruce Willis is like a robot these days.Maybe he always has been but
I seen no passion at all in his acting.He is playing the same roles all in
the same manner.While he used to do more risky and different roles next to
his action ones.It does seem like Willis is doing it for the money and not the art.
[deleted]
haha look at all the people here sucking bruce willis dick. Turns out his an greedy *beep* don't believe me, ask his peers, Stallone and Arnold
Paul W.S. Anderson raping franchises since 1994