Movie Mash-Up

[Human without the bean]

17 hours ago, WordWolf said:

That is not the name of this movie.   

(While I am posting, I will also add that it is not the name of the actor in question.)

So that leaves out Being John Malkovich.  And oh, yes, this is Movie Mash Up.  Got it, not your clue WordWolf, just this thread.

[WordWolf]

6 hours ago, Raf said:

Does the title of this movie refer to something I might hear on a daily basis?

I sincerely hope not!

[WordWolf]

When this movie hit theaters, one famous actor was notably missing from the credits. He wasn't in a starring role or anything, he just wanted to be in the movie. In fact, at first, it was hard to recognize him at all in his role.  For the record, the early scripts didn't really have his role, but when the director found out he wanted in on the movie, he (the director) hastily added a scene just so he (the famous actor) could be in it. 

When this movie was in the planning stages, 2 actors worked on the script.  They had the same agent. He recommended a third actor be cast for a role somewhere.  When asked why, he admitted he represented all 3 of them, and it was good for him for the other guy to get a role also. 

There was some disagreement over the budget. The studio came down with such a low budget for the movie that the director gave up on them and went to a different studio. They agreed, and the movie became a big hit, and rather famous. 

I'm glad they were able to fix communications with the lighting director. He was given one set of directions, then later told the lighting was awful.  Finally, one writer pointed out what they SHOULD have told him from the beginning but they had NOT. (They didn't want gloomy, dark lighting for the scenes, that would have hidden everything. They wanted the FEEL of gloomy, dark lighting, but scenes that were well lit any way.)  The lighting director was then able to give them what they wanted.  (Good thing he spoke up, the lighting director was getting ready to walk out.) 

Deleted scenes included the reading of the will.  One scene was the subject of a long argument between the two writers about whether or not it should be included- if it would detract from the movie, or add to the movie. It was eventually included- and is probably the best-remembered scene in the movie.  (We also saw the famous trope- even people in formal dress seem to carry around vegetables or fruits to throw if they want to complain. Blink and you may miss it.) 

[Raf]

Ah, I would hazard a guess but I have to go out and cover some stuff I left outside. Those daily afternoon storms, let me tell you. Just like clockwork here in Florida. 
Looking forward to the answer to this one, WW. 

[GeorgeStGeorge]

Young Frankenstein?

George

[WordWolf]

4 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

Young Frankenstein?

George

That's it!

[WordWolf]

13 hours ago, WordWolf said:

When this movie hit theaters, one famous actor was notably missing from the credits. He wasn't in a starring role or anything, he just wanted to be in the movie. In fact, at first, it was hard to recognize him at all in his role.  For the record, the early scripts didn't really have his role, but when the director found out he wanted in on the movie, he (the director) hastily added a scene just so he (the famous actor) could be in it. 

When this movie was in the planning stages, 2 actors worked on the script.  They had the same agent. He recommended a third actor be cast for a role somewhere.  When asked why, he admitted he represented all 3 of them, and it was good for him for the other guy to get a role also. 

There was some disagreement over the budget. The studio came down with such a low budget for the movie that the director gave up on them and went to a different studio. They agreed, and the movie became a big hit, and rather famous. 

I'm glad they were able to fix communications with the lighting director. He was given one set of directions, then later told the lighting was awful.  Finally, one writer pointed out what they SHOULD have told him from the beginning but they had NOT. (They didn't want gloomy, dark lighting for the scenes, that would have hidden everything. They wanted the FEEL of gloomy, dark lighting, but scenes that were well lit any way.)  The lighting director was then able to give them what they wanted.  (Good thing he spoke up, the lighting director was getting ready to walk out.) 

Deleted scenes included the reading of the will.  One scene was the subject of a long argument between the two writers about whether or not it should be included- if it would detract from the movie, or add to the movie. It was eventually included- and is probably the best-remembered scene in the movie.  (We also saw the famous trope- even people in formal dress seem to carry around vegetables or fruits to throw if they want to complain. Blink and you may miss it.) 

The big actor was GENE HACKMAN.  Mel Brooks added the blind hermit's scene for him. 

Gene Wilder had approached Mel Brooks with his idea, and they collaborated. Their agent was the agent for PETER BOYLE.  

Mel Brooks jumped studios over the low budget. The studio that let him complete it got a runaway hit on their hands. 

They wanted the FEEL of the gloomy lighting, but not gloomy lighting for scenes. So, when they showed the background, there was gloom. Center stage was well-lit. 

The scene with the long argument- Gene Wilder insisted on the musical number- "Putting on the Ritz"!  Mel Brooks later admitted he wasn't sure, so he checked how passionate Wilder was for the scene to be included. The rest is history...and the ladies and gentlemen in the audience threw lettuce and stuff before the scene ended. 

 

Go, George!