• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Patrick Stewart as Mr Freeze?

Infern0

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
At one point, Patrick Stewart was in talks to play Mr Freeze in the film "batman and robin".

Perhaps luckily for Patrick the role went to Arnold Schwarzenegger instead, as the film was a disaster.

I think Stewart would have played a very different type of freeze than arnold did, obviously i can't see him doing the one liners, and he'd be a lot more of an intellectual, which is more true to the character. I think he would have been able to really capture the tragic nature of Mr Freeze, who unlike many batman villains does have a heart, and is forced into becoming a villain by truly tragic circumstances.

How do you think the film would have been different with Patrick, whould he have been enough to turn the movie into something decent, or would that have been too much to ask.
 
The choice to cast Arnold was because of the direction of the film. Stewart was never going to fit into that vision.
 
I think the BTAS Freeze would've been the one we saw in Barman and Robin had Stewart done it. I heard he turned down the role because of X-Men.
 
"OK, so we need to cast Professor X."
"We need a bald actor."
"Patrick Stewart?"
"Perfect, now we need to cast Mr. Freeze."
"We need a bald actor."
"Patrick Stewart?"
 
No way would Patrick Stewart have done any of those crap Joel Schumacher Batman films.

So...Conspiracy Theory?

I've noticed that people often wonder why wonderful actors take such shit roles at times (example: F. Murray Abraham in Insurrection). My explanation is what I call the "foundation theory". It comes from an episode of Inside The Actor's Studio with Michael Caine, wherein someone asked him why, with all the great work he's done, WHY the hell he ever did Jaws 4? After the laughter died down, he said, "Well, I'm an actor. And an actor has to work. Sometime you get to do the things you want to & sometimes you do the things you have to. Well, at that time, the foundation on my house needed to be redone, so I did that movie."

Now, when I see a great actor in a shit flick, I immediately think, "Foundation on their house must need repair."
 
And if they do three crappy films in a row, it's a foundation trilogy. ;)

Uh, I'll just let myself out. :whistle:

Sincerely,

Bill
 
The choice to cast Arnold was because of the direction of the film. Stewart was never going to fit into that vision.

At the time they cast Arnold, he still would've been one of the top five most bankable names at the time. That whole period after True Lies was a big career mess for him. Even though Eraser was a hit, everyone was underwhelmed by it.

No way would Patrick Stewart have done any of those crap Joel Schumacher Batman films.

Gunmen? Masterminds? Bambi II?

I've noticed that people often wonder why wonderful actors take such shit roles at times (example: F. Murray Abraham in Insurrection). My explanation is what I call the "foundation theory". It comes from an episode of Inside The Actor's Studio with Michael Caine, wherein someone asked him why, with all the great work he's done, WHY the hell he ever did Jaws 4? After the laughter died down, he said, "Well, I'm an actor. And an actor has to work. Sometime you get to do the things you want to & sometimes you do the things you have to. Well, at that time, the foundation on my house needed to be redone, so I did that movie."

Now, when I see a great actor in a shit flick, I immediately think, "Foundation on their house must need repair."

"I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
 
Judging by some of his career choices, Stewart would have taken the role if it was offered to him and he would have hammed it up big time if asked to do so. Some people lump Batman Forever and Batman & Robin together, but, setting revisionism aside, Batman Forever was a big hit and parts in Batman & Robin were highly sought after.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that people often wonder why wonderful actors take such shit roles at times (example: F. Murray Abraham in Insurrection).

What's to wonder? He loves the franchise and wanted to be part of it. It wasn't even necessarily about the money.

And I quote:
If I could do only "Star Trek" movies for the rest of my career, I would. That`s how strongly I feel about this organization. I do not say that lightly.
 
And if they do three crappy films in a row, it's a foundation trilogy. ;)

Uh, I'll just let myself out. :whistle:

Sincerely,

Bill

Now THAT is funny!!! :guffaw:

...on your way out, please see Quark at the Dabo Tables...I think we can find work for you...!
 
I've noticed that people often wonder why wonderful actors take such shit roles at times (example: F. Murray Abraham in Insurrection).

What's to wonder? He loves the franchise and wanted to be part of it. It wasn't even necessarily about the money.

And I quote:
If I could do only "Star Trek" movies for the rest of my career, I would. That`s how strongly I feel about this organization. I do not say that lightly.
See? That's what I mean. He did it because he wanted to. It was still a shit movie, but OK, that was his reason. Knew it wasn't art.
 
I also think Stewart could have tried a hammy version but it still would have been mostly annoying, then he wouldn't done X-Men and it'd be hard to find another actor as good for Professor X.
 
He could have but I think B&R and the reaction would have given him an overly bad impression of comic book adaptations and the X-Men casting people would have also wanted to avoid an association.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top