Posted by sean at threshold8n.jpmorgan.com on May 21, 2002 at 17:03:39:
In Reply to: Okay... posted by Championship_Vinyl on May 21, 2002 at 16:57:04:
: Also, I’m sure directing Kevin Costner had something to do with his taking it. Like Costner’s work or not, the man has an Oscar.
But not for acting. Costner's apparently impossible to work with, and I'm sure that his Oscar for directing has something to do with it.
: But I was trying to imply (and I'm sure that you and I are just arguing the same thing here) that Raimi tends to do films that he would like to see. Films that when made, he expects the story be told a certain way.
I agree ... but that's why it must have sucked for him to watch it tank so hard.
Still, I imagine it felt pretty good that the studio backed his cut rather than Costner's. (For the record, Costner may or may not be a great actor, but his performance in "A Perfect World" ranked, for me, far better than four of the five nominees for Best Actor that year.
: And as a final note, ANY Arnold movie is a good Arnold movie.
Oh, you'll get no argument from me on that one. But Raimi helming "End of Days" would have made it great, would have re-launched Arnold's career, and would've given Raimi a much closer step to the A-list than "For Love of the Game" did.