| February 17th, 2005 06:52 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
From Shidoobee:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hill Media indicates that Keith Richards may not be appearing in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest as had been expected. According to the site, Richards, who was set to appear as the father of Captain Jack Sparrow, wanted a check the size of the large one Johnny Depp will receive, despite Richard's being in the film for a small fraction of the time. Meanwhile, controversy has erupted over the film's portrayal of the Carib Indians indulging in cannibalism, Telegraph reports. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest will set sail in 2006.
-------------------------------------------------------------
That's one MAJOR let-down 
I was really looking forward to seeing Keith act the pirate role...
And to turn such an opportunity down due to MONEY? How much more $$$$ can he possibly need?!?!?!?!? With a tour coming and all?
Major, major, major let-down. |
| February 17th, 2005 07:19 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
I think this is good news. Sequels generally suck & Keith needs to get in the music studio. |
| February 17th, 2005 07:35 AM |
|
|
| Monkeytonkman |
Fuck me thats a bit of a shock, I thought Keef and Johnny were pretty tight together.
Doesn't sound like Keef, how much fuckin money does that bloke need? sounds more like a Jagger thing to me.
more i think about it the more this story smells like bullshit to me. But i suppose you got a point glencar - It should be about the music. then again he would only be shooting for a couple of day, no more, so what harms that. a few days in seven years and counting |
| February 17th, 2005 07:35 AM |
|
|
| Monkeytonkman |
Fuck me thats a bit of a shock, I thought Keef and Johnny were pretty tight together.
Doesn't sound like Keef, how much fuckin money does that bloke need? sounds more like a Jagger thing to me.
more i think about it the more this story smells like bullshit to me. But i suppose you got a point glencar - It should be about the music. then again he would only be shooting for a couple of day, no more, so what harms that. a few days in seven years and counting |
| February 17th, 2005 07:37 AM |
|
|
| Mr Hess |
Keith probably didn't want to do it in the first place.
The money excuse was his easy out. |
| February 17th, 2005 07:45 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
If Keith thinks HIS contribution to the film merits a fee on a par with that of the main star, then his brain really IS finally fried beyond recall. |
| February 17th, 2005 07:54 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
That's the part of the story that doesn't sound true. |
| February 17th, 2005 08:12 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
If Keith thinks HIS contribution to the film merits a fee on a par with that of the main star, then his brain really IS finally fried beyond recall.
I never wanted to admit it before (and I don't even want to admit it now), but suddenly things are starting to click. I sure hope the story is trash.
I just don't understand how a person like Keith Richards could turn out like that - and I'm not saying he's the perfect human being, but heck, greed (I thought) was never a prime motive. |
| February 17th, 2005 08:34 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
They probably put a clause in his contract about being semi sober during filming....DEAL BREAKER! |
| February 17th, 2005 08:46 AM |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
It's all about the Benjamins, Keith!
[Edited by Keith Richards' Accountant]
[Edited by Snappy McJack] |
| February 17th, 2005 09:30 AM |
|
|
| Doxa |
Yeah, IF that money thing is true, Keith's rationale seems a bit odd. Do they the Stones pay their additional guests the same sum of moneý as to themselves? Does Sheryl Crow got the same check as Keith Richards in the night she happens to sing a duet with Jagger?
- Doxa |
| February 17th, 2005 09:44 AM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
Can anyone tell me where Keith's interview is on the Pirates' special features dvd?
Just got the dvd but can't locate the interview...
tia! |
| February 17th, 2005 10:06 AM |
|
|
| moy |
Disney accused of bad taste over Carib cannibals in pirate movie
By Tom Leonard in New York
(Filed: 15/02/2005)
The filmmaker Disney has angered the chief of a tribe of Carib Indians over plans to portray his forbears as savage cannibals in a sequel to Pirates of the Caribbean.
Work on the film, which will see Johnny Depp reprise his role as a pirate along with a guest appearance by the Rolling Stone Keith Richards as his father, is expected to begin next month on the island of Dominica.
Johnny Depp as pirate Captain Jack Sparrow
However, the chief of the former British colony's Carib community has demanded that the script be rewritten to show the Caribbean's indigenous inhabitants in a more positive light. The Caribs – the warlike people who dominated much of the eastern Caribbean before the arrival of the Europeans – have long denied that their ancestors practised cannibalism.
The accusation first surfaced when, upon landing in Guadeloupe and entering a nearby Carib village, Columbus's crew inspected the contents of a bubbling cauldron and made a grisly discovery.
Charles Williams, the chief of Dominica's 3,000 Caribs - the last remaining community in the Caribbean – claimed that recent discussions with Disney executives had disclosed "that there is a strong element of cannibalism in the script which cannot be removed".
Mr Williams added: "Our ancestors stood up against early European conquerors and because they stood up… we were labelled savages and cannibals up to today. This cannot be perpetuated in the movies," he said.
Disney, whose output has long toed a progressive line in matters of political correctness, has not commented on the row.
The government of Dominica has said the producers plan to film for six to eight weeks on the island. Several hundred Dominicans from the island's 70,000 population have applied to be extras, including some Caribs.
The Dominican government has been doing everything possible to secure the filming and believes it will boost its economy significantly.
Leaving aside the delicate issue of dietary requirements, the consensus among historians is that while the Caribs were fierce pirates, far from being savages, they were accomplished seafarers who roamed the Caribbean in huge dug-out canoes.
Most of them were killed by disease and war during the colonisation of the Caribbean in the 17th century.
Mr Williams said he had received support from other indigenous groups around the world but admitted that some of Dominica's Caribs, including members of his own council, did not share his stance. He said the latter did not "understand our history", adding: "They are weak and are not committed to the cause of the Carib people."
The first Pirates of the Caribbean film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, took $305 million (£160 million) at the American box office, making it the second highest grossing film in 2003.
The new film, Dead Man's Chest, will also star the British actors Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley and Mackenzie Crook, who appeared in the original.
Depp reportedly based his character, the mercurial Capt Jack Sparrow, on Keith Richards and is credited with persuading the guitarist to join the cast for the new film
|
| February 17th, 2005 10:20 AM |
|
|
| Lazy Bones |
I'll remain optimistic...
[Edited by Lazy Bones] |
| February 17th, 2005 10:23 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
quote:
Lazy Bones wrote:
Can anyone tell me where Keith's interview is on the Pirates' special features dvd?
Just got the dvd but can't locate the interview...
tia!
If I remember this right, go to the "Moonlight Serenade" section of the bonus features, then press down until the skeleton's tooth goes shiny gold. Then you press enter and there you have it, a lovely clip of Keith speaking about Johnny and the whole inspiration for the role.
Thanks for the article Moy. I sure do hope the whole thing with Keith not joining is a mistake or a stupid rumour. I'll go check this Jim Hill Media site. |
| February 17th, 2005 10:28 AM |
|
|
| FotiniD |
Here is the article from Jimhillmedia.com:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Late last fall, it was all that "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl" fans could talk about. The rumor that Keith Richards -- the rock legend who supposedly inspired Johnny Depp's performance in the first "Pirates" picture -- had agreed to play Capt. Jack Sparrow's dad in the sequels.
Well, with less than two weeks to go 'til the official start of production, word has begun leaking out of producer Jerry Bruckheimer's office that it might be a bit premature to definitively say that the Rolling Stones vet is definitely going to appear in "Dead Man's Chest" as well as the yet-to-be-named third fim in the series.
"What's the problem?," you ask. Well, it appears that Disney's reps & Keith's people can't quite come to terms over what Richards' share of the "Pirates" booty should be. Given that Depp is reportedly recieving more than $20 million (as well as a chunk of the picture's back end) to reprise his role as Capt. Jack, Keith was supposedly looking for a similiar sized check to play Johnny's pappy. And -- given that Richards was only supposed to spend four days shooting his part of the picture (Whereas Depp will be on-set for the full 8-to-10 months that "Pirates II" & "III" are in production) -- Well ... I guess you can understand why the Mouse might be reluctant to give this rock star a seven figure salary for what is basically a glorified cameo.
That said ... Folks close to Bruckheimer's production office still say that it's still way too early to count Keith out. "We're going to try & keep the lines of communication open," said one un-named insider."With the hope that -- sometime between now and the end of October -- we can come to some sort of financial arrangement that both sides can live with. We still very much want Keith Richards to be a part of these pictures. To have Sparrow father & son on screen together. But -- as of this moment -- the numbers just aren't lining up. Maybe further on down the line, they will."
....
....
Anyway ... That's pretty much it for today's "Pirates" related news. In the meantime, I'll keep you posted on what's going on with Disney's negotiations with Mr. Richards & Chief Williams. Though I can't help but think that both of these issues could be quickly dealt with were the Mouse to hire a real cannibal to to meet with Keith & Charles.
By that I mean: Wouldn't you be in a hurry to reach a settlement if the person across the table from you were to say something like:
"Please sign on the dotted line. Otherwise I'll eat your spine."
--------------------------------------------------------------
IF all this is true, Keith is in dire need of some a$$ kicking. Enough with the money for Christ's sakes, three generations of Richardses can live with what he's got already!!
I hope there's some stupid lawyer behind this, but even then... Weird. Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see. |
| February 17th, 2005 10:36 AM |
|
|
| J.J.Flash |
quote:
Monkeytonkman wrote:
Fuck me thats a bit of a shock, I thought Keef and Johnny were pretty tight together.
Doesn't sound like Keef, how much fuckin money does that bloke need? sounds more like a Jagger thing to me.
[...]
Amen little fella, amen!
I'm disappointed. Even if it looks ridiculous, Keith puting his character in a movie, letting music in a background, I was dying to see Keith acting. But now, Keith caring that much for the money, mostly because we always heard that Johnny and Keith are close friends.... and now....THIS?!?!?! Sorta Mick Jagger.
Why man, why!? |
| February 17th, 2005 11:21 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Doxa wrote:
Yeah, IF that money thing is true, Keith's rationale seems a bit odd. Do they the Stones pay their additional guests the same sum of moneý as to themselves?
I don't believe it. I mean I'll admit that Keith likes to rake in the big bucks but that's for his own gig, the Rolling Stones. If he were to appear in that movie it would be just for the fuck of it. |
| February 17th, 2005 12:57 PM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Disney is having financial problems which is leading to greater scrutiny of the budgets on their film projects. |
| February 17th, 2005 01:14 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
I'm not agreeing with the idea that Keith should get a lot of money - if I were Keith I'd do it for free or donate the proceeds to charity....but given the fact that it's an established fact Johnny based his character on Keith (and thus the movie), this might give someone the idea to ask for more money. But in the words of Frank Zappa, "Shut up and play your guitar!"
! |
| February 17th, 2005 04:57 PM |
|
|
| kahoosier |
I am a bit disappointed, to be sure, that this might not happen.
Of course, I am also constantly surprised by the total forgiveness often offered Keith. I mean with a tour rumoured, and a long awaited album not finished, can you imaginge the BACKLASH Mick woudl get for even taking four days off to film a cameo? People would jump up and down screaming he had lost focus on his primary purpose in life, the Stones.
And the bit about the money sounding more like a Jagger thing is a bit innocent if not all out naive. No deal, no financial money grab, no screw of the fans gets by without Keith's approval. It is amazing that Mick is praised and slagged for his press manipulations, when in many ways Keith is much better at it. As he builds still another house in the Carribean, in the really exclusive Turks, he lets Mick take the shots for being greedy. People still think of him as that Rock and Roll rebel that woudl play for free on street corners if he had to; go read his intereviews about the big plaguerism suit that the Glimmer Twins won a few years back. Trust me, Keith wants to make sure he gets every piece of the pie he can get.
They are both there when Cohl and the others we never see present the methods for more money to be made, and both Mick and Keith agree to it. I am not slagging him, I am not saying he is wrong, and I would never say that I woudl not try to make as much money as I could in their situation. I am just in awe that Keith keeps getting viewd as such an innocent in all ways except his chemical habits |
| February 17th, 2005 05:11 PM |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
quote:
kahoosier wrote:
I am a bit disappointed, to be sure, that this might not happen.
Of course, I am also constantly surprised by the total forgiveness often offered Keith. I mean with a tour rumoured, and a long awaited album not finished, can you imaginge the BACKLASH Mick woudl get for even taking four days off to film a cameo? People would jump up and down screaming he had lost focus on his primary purpose in life, the Stones.
And the bit about the money sounding more like a Jagger thing is a bit innocent if not all out naive. No deal, no financial money grab, no screw of the fans gets by without Keith's approval. It is amazing that Mick is praised and slagged for his press manipulations, when in many ways Keith is much better at it. As he builds still another house in the Carribean, in the really exclusive Turks, he lets Mick take the shots for being greedy. People still think of him as that Rock and Roll rebel that woudl play for free on street corners if he had to; go read his intereviews about the big plaguerism suit that the Glimmer Twins won a few years back. Trust me, Keith wants to make sure he gets every piece of the pie he can get.
They are both there when Cohl and the others we never see present the methods for more money to be made, and both Mick and Keith agree to it. I am not slagging him, I am not saying he is wrong, and I would never say that I woudl not try to make as much money as I could in their situation. I am just in awe that Keith keeps getting viewd as such an innocent in all ways except his chemical habits
All of that is completely true. Keith is looked upon as the "down to earth" musician that just "shows up and plays."
It's funny that he hasn't released more than one tune in the last eight years, but somehow gives Jagger shit about making a solo record. |
| February 17th, 2005 05:11 PM |
|
|
| Poplar |
bummer. i hate hearing this krap. |
| February 17th, 2005 05:46 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Amen to kahoosier! Mick always takes the heat but Keith is surely almost as responsible. Why there used to be one idiot who would post several hundred times (back on Stonesworld so please nobody get all paranoid here!) about how Mick was ruining the Stones. Keith was their savior but MIck kept getting in the way. |
| February 17th, 2005 07:42 PM |
|
|
| Bob Tamp |
Keith likes to give Mick a lot of shit for being trendy, yet what has he done in the last 10 years?
Keith I think has become much more of a prima donna than Mick the last decade. Sad, but I feel it's true. |
| February 17th, 2005 08:56 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Keith is writing a new Rolling Stones album, no time for Disney movies. |
| February 17th, 2005 10:06 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
Great post, Kahoosier. I agree with you 100%.
I was gonna say something similar earlier only my connection at work was crap - you not only saved me the bother of re-typing it, but expressed it far more coherently than I would have!
The Stones are a committee. And anyone who thinks that all the money-grabbing ventures and scams is solely down to Mick and/or Cohl with no feedback or input from the others is living in dreamland. If Keith and the rest of the band had some idealistic doubts about rock 'n' rollers playing corporate gigs, being party to ticket scams and charging a week's wages for a decent concert ticket, they'd have vetoed it and those things would never have happened. |
| February 18th, 2005 12:22 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Monkeytonkman wrote:
Fuck me thats a bit of a shock, I thought Keef and Johnny were pretty tight together.
Doesn't sound like Keef, how much fuckin money does that bloke need? sounds more like a Jagger thing to me.
more i think about it the more this story smells like bullshit to me. But i suppose you got a point glencar - It should be about the music. then again he would only be shooting for a couple of day, no more, so what harms that. a few days in seven years and counting
_____________________________________________________________________
You're right ,
It really doesn't sound like a Keith move. I figured (and the way I got it) was that Keith was kinda doing it as a favor to mainley Johnny Depp and the writers and director were going to go with it. I didn't think money would become an issue at all in this. We will see.
Ian
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| February 18th, 2005 12:30 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Hey everyone,
You know what is kinda funny. What if Keith thought this was like some big Movie Role and he should get paid like Robert Dineiro or something. Keith Richards taking himself seriously as a major actor now because of this? That's so funny. It's like "well come on now Keith".
Although I really don't think this was the case or anything. It does seem like a funny scenario though.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| February 18th, 2005 01:55 AM |
|
|
| prism |
Money has nothing to do with his reason not to act in the film, although it may be the reason he gave the producers. He's not into doing it. |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]