The Fast and the Furious

This message has been deleted by an administrator

The good thing about McQueen's car stuff is that it maintained a toehold in realism, hence maintaining a sense of credibility. I don't know that that mystique would have necessarily meshed with the current movie mentality where cars fly from one skyscraper to the next ...

Yes, McQueen's films were based on a more down-to-earth reality . . . these movies toady are all over the place . . .

Fast and furious films are crap to say McQueen in them is a insult to his name glad it never happened

Kidd, you are correct - the thought of the "Bullitt" chase (which I saw in a theater in 1968) filmed in stop-motion with loud music and not Lalo Schifrin's outstanding score makes me sick.

Who knows, maybe McQueen would have consented to a cameo appearance.



"Life is a scam" - Steve McQueen

Who knows, maybe McQueen would have consented to a cameo appearance.

Doc, what do you know about McQueen's fiscal situation? Obviously, he made a lot of money, but was he the kind of guy who managed his money smartly? Were there any sharks in his inner-circle who might have swindled him or given him poor advice, or did he keep those kinds of people out?

And if McQueen did not need the money, do you imagine that he would have done something like a Fast and Furious cameo for a large enough paycheck? Or, if he was in a strong financial situation, would money have been irrelevant?

Perhaps he would have been interested in the idea of participating in an homage to his movie past? Or would he have wanted to remain relevant with younger audiences? Maybe he would have just laughed at the very idea.

By the way, Doc, I wanted to thank you for sharing that anecdote about John Wayne and politics—was it from a friend of yours who met him? Unfortunately, I can no longer find the post—I guess that it is in a thread that no longer exists.

Haven't seen you for awhile Kidd (I'm not on here much anymore).

”Doc, what do you know about McQueen's fiscal situation? Obviously, he made a lot of money, but was he the kind of guy who managed his money smartly? Were there any sharks in his inner-circle who might have swindled him or given him poor advice, or did he keep those kinds of people out?”

I have read in several places, including Neile McQueen's book, that McQueen had the William Morris agency for most of his career up until about "Le Mans". After that he had Freddie Fields (probably the most notable agent of the 1970's or at least one of them). Fields got McQueen great contracts for "Papillon" and especially "The Towering Inferno", which funnels considerable money into the McQueen estate to this day. McQueen's instructions to Fields after "Papillon" were "the next one (movie) has to be right here in CA, no more location filming - I want a sweetheart deal".

"Le Mans" flopped in a big way, resulting in the loss of something like $2-3 million to McQueen and maybe more. Because of this McQueen agreed to film a motorcycle commercial to be shown only in Japan for $1 million, which gave him a chance to straighten the financial mess of "Le Mans". I read at the time of his death McQueen was worth about $16 to 20 million, so he had more than recovered from the “Le Mans” debacle.

My guess is that McQueen would not have consented to any cameos that would have spoofed or even appeared to spoof his image; he might have taken occasional roles that interested him but probably would have been tough to negotiate with. Maybe McQueen would have worked with Clint Eastwood, of whom he once said “that guy knows how to make a movie”.

”By the way, Doc, I wanted to thank you for sharing that anecdote about John Wayne and politics—was it from a friend of yours who met him? Unfortunately, I can no longer find the post—I guess that it is in a thread that no longer exists.”

I remember that post but I couldn’t find it either. The story came from a friend of mine who met John Wayne, after Wayne had finished “The Shootist”.


"Life is a scam" - Steve McQueen

I have read in several places, including Neile McQueen's book, that McQueen had the William Morris agency for most of his career up until about "Le Mans". After that he had Freddie Fields (probably the most notable agent of the 1970's or at least one of them). Fields got McQueen great contracts for "Papillon" and especially "The Towering Inferno", which funnels considerable money into the McQueen estate to this day. McQueen's instructions to Fields after "Papillon" were "the next one (movie) has to be right here in CA, no more location filming - I want a sweetheart deal".

"Le Mans" flopped in a big way, resulting in the loss of something like $2-3 million to McQueen and maybe more. Because of this McQueen agreed to film a motorcycle commercial to be shown only in Japan for $1 million, which gave him a chance to straighten the financial mess of "Le Mans". I read at the time of his death McQueen was worth about $16 to 20 million, so he had more than recovered from the “Le Mans” debacle.

My guess is that McQueen would not have consented to any cameos that would have spoofed or even appeared to spoof his image; he might have taken occasional roles that interested him but probably would have been tough to negotiate with. Maybe McQueen would have worked with Clint Eastwood, of whom he once said “that guy knows how to make a movie”.

Thanks for the information, Doc.

So McQueen put his own money into Le Mans? Obviously, the project represented a personal passion for him. But even after Bullitt, the big studios were not that interested in this project? Or did McQueen need to pour his own money into Le Mans due to cost overruns or to compensate the distributor?

McQueen wanting to stay in California and avoid location shooting would explain why he rejected Francis Ford Coppola's offer to play Captain Willard in Apocalypse Now and McQueen's interest in playing Colonel Kurtz instead—since he could play Kurtz in two weeks' time (at least according to the original shooting schedule). McQueen, of course, then called Eastwood and suggested that Eastwood play Willard while McQueen took the part of Kurtz. So McQueen was evincing interest in working with Eastwood even then, and he was taking some producing initiative—McQueen called Eastwood before Coppola did, which suggests that McQueen made the suggestion to Coppola. But like McQueen, Eastwood was leery of spending four months in the Philippine jungle (the actual shooting duration, of course, turned out to be much longer). Eastwood was also skeptical of Coppola's ending for the script and its uncertain state at that time.

(Eastwood loved location shooting, but he wanted to be able to control the circumstances, especially after Kelly's Heroes, where he spent six months in Yugoslavia only to see what he deemed the best scenes in the film excised for the theatrical release.)

But something that I have never been clear about is why McQueen ultimately did not play Kurtz. Did he not want to play the role if Eastwood did not play Willard? Did he lose interest in the project? Or did McQueen ultimately ask for too much money? Perhaps Coppola was never that keen on McQueen playing Kurtz in the first place, especially at a certain price.

By the way, if McQueen had remained active as an actor, I could have seen Eastwood casting him in Space Cowboys (2000), perhaps in the part played by Tommy Lee Jones. Although Jones is terrific in the role of Hawk Hawkins, McQueen would have been more age-appropriate and would have complemented the sense of American mythos that Eastwood brings to the film directorially, as he (ingeniously, I feel) finds the sweet spot between homage and parody. The recruitment of the main characters is reminiscent, in broad tones, of The Magnificent Seven.

I remember that post but I couldn’t find it either. The story came from a friend of mine who met John Wayne, after Wayne had finished “The Shootist”.

And was your friend liberal and surprised by how open-minded and tolerant Wayne proved to be? I am trying to recall the details ...