SMG Lost Movie Roles

[fauxindigo]

Which of these roles that SMG almost had (or had but had to back out-mostly due to Buffy) do you think would have enhanced or potentially made a huge difference to her career? Or maybe you just would have loved to see her in one movie in particular...even if it isn't that great- like The Faculty which I happen to love (it is a late 90's Robert Rodriguez teen sci-fi movie after all); it would have been so cool to see her in the mix with these characters/actors and to see her play the villain. Also, even though Urban Legend is kind of really bad, I find it entertaining and it would have been a nice addition to her credits as a 90's scream queen!

Although I LOVE the movie Stardust, it's ultimately a toss up for me between Cher in Clueless (this is an iconic role and would've fit perfectly in her credits right before Buffy started), Juliet opposite Leo DiCaprio, and Rogue in X-Men. I think Rogue may have helped her get better, bigger roles after Buffy ended.. and cemented her as not only a scream queen but an action hero/movie star. not that the role really did that for Anna Paquin but SMG was already known for playing a superhero so it would've been a continuation of a type of role she should've have shied away from being typecast as.

 

[white avenger]

Rogue in X-Men.

Really? Sarah was ever considered for that part? I can't imagine her playing a role where her basic costume was nothing more than body paint and a few strategically placed foam rubber applications, considering her aversion to nudity and the fact that, because of the time required to apply the "costume," the use of a body double would be totally impractical.

In any event, I read somewhere that she was considered for the female lead in "The Golden Compass," but lost out to a younger actress.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

I think SMG has a lot of versatility as an actress, so it's hard for me to choose only one. From that list, Clueless seems the most natural and Rogue from the X-men is the most intriguing.

Television is more intimate, and sometimes tv actors don't transfer well to the big screen when they have to have a larger presence, and to take command of the screen space they fill. I've seen it before where successful tv actors fail at this, and they fail to fill the space well enough and get outshined by other actors they share that enlarged space with. Movie actors have to really dominate with their presence. If no one does it leaves a large, palpable void. Good movie actors I think take for granted this point because they are conditioned from the beginning of their careers to fill space with presence. I think SMG had what it took for big movie roles, but for instance AH does not. AH's acting really happens in a very small, intimate space around her, and I'm not surprised that all she has ever done in any medium are naturally fitting roles that didn't require her to step outside of herself much. In my mind she could never really play any larger role than what she has done to this point. To me AH is more a natural fit for tv, just as an example.

 

[Bite-me]

I choose Gangs of New York. My reason out of all of them, Clueless is the worse choice.

The status as a classic would have cemented her role in pop culture except Buffy achieved that already. Buffy type casted her already as well. "I Know What You Did Last Summer" is fine as a first flim credit but SMG might have avoided typecasting by not appearing in Scream and The Grudge and consequencely lesser paid indie horror flims like "The Return" "The Air I Breathe"

I do not like the idea of Sarah Michelle playing either Cher or Elle Woods. They are meant to be striking back at making assumptions about appearances and unestiminating girly fashion-ward femininity, they aren't of the same caliber and they still feel reductive.

Playing Juliet in Romeo And Juliet, or Rose, you forget Rose in Titanic @Fauxindio, she was up for that part too, would have cemented her name recognition in the industry and culture but it is likely she would not have continued to do Buffy for seven seasons, three seasons is worse case scenario, five seasons the best case scenario.

The Crucible is just a film credit that wouldn't have advanced her career, Winona Ryder is and was a well known character actor when she took on that role, SMG would have much more to prove and as we've seen that movie was not career making for any lesser knowns.

Stardust is a paycheck and a credit like "Scooby Doo" to be honest, it would not change the trajectory her career went.

Being a character in the X-Men franchise attracts huge stars, especially now days like we see with Anna Paquin it does not necessarily create them, she had to wait for a TV role to be her big breakout and Buffy is that.

Cruel Intentions was a great choice, it was a huge career making hit for her other two leads.
It was weighty role that showed off Sarah Michelle Gellar's acting skills... no one would have suspected she was not on the way to having greater film success.

Gangs of New York would have given her one more opportunity to establish herself as a serious actress with a capital S.

 

[Athena]

1. Clueless (Cher) - I can't see SMG as Cher. Alicia Silverstone has the right amount of sex appeal, naivety and comic timing. No-one could play Cher better than she.
2. The Faculty (Marybeth) - don't recall the character, so probably not
3. Romeo + Juliet (Juliet) - See Clueless. Claire Danes really nails this role. I can't see SMG being better.
4. Gangs of New York (Jenny) - I seem to recall this was a very gritty character, I guess having Scorsese on your CV is a good thing, but I personally always felt Cameron Diaz was miscast so.... not sure to be honest
5. Stardust (Yvaine) - good character, great movie. This is probably the only potential choice for me. Look at Charlie Cox.
6. The Crucible (Gertie) - never seen
7. Urban Legend (Sasha) - don't remember the character
8. X-Men (Rogue) - nope. Anna Paquin was okay in a terribly written character. Had they wrote her like she's meant to be in the comics, then yes!

 

[GwenRaiden]

Urban Legend (Sasha) - don't remember the character

Sasha was the sexy blonde/university radio host, played by Tara Reid, who went out with Michael Rosenbaum's character (who was aptly named 'Parker Riley'.) It was basically the same role as her Scream 2 role.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

Clueless (Cher) - I can't see SMG as Cher. Alicia Silverstone has the right amount of sex appeal, naivety and comic timing. No-one could play Cher better than she.

Huh?
I am not denying Alica did a great job, but Sarah would play the hell out of that role. Eliza as Tai 😀

Most of these other roles are quite boring and unsuited for Sarah. I would hate seeing her as Juliet, even though it is a decent flick.

 

[Taake]

I picked Romeo + Juliet (I think Danes is terrible there she's utterly 'blah' and we're supposed to think anyone would fall for her?), I wouldn't have minded seeing her in Stardust either (maybe I just have a Clare Danes problem 😛 ) Seriously though, I think Romeo + Juliet would've been the potential to change her career, it wouldn't have been in the sci-fi/fantasy realm, takes her away from the ditzy blondes like Cher and the Urban Legends girl, and though I seem to remember that the movie wasn't that huge at the time, I do feel it could've introduced Sarah to a larger mainstream audience. I could easily picture her in the role... it would just be an added bonus to get rid of Danes.

 

[Anyanka Bunny Slayer]

I picked Romeo + Juliet (I think Danes is terrible there she's utterly 'blah' and we're supposed to think anyone would fall for her?), I wouldn't have minded seeing her in Stardust either (maybe I just have a Clare Danes problem 😛 ) Seriously though, I think Romeo + Juliet would've been the potential to change her career, it wouldn't have been in the sci-fi/fantasy realm, takes her away from the ditzy blondes like Cher and the Urban Legends girl, and though I seem to remember that the movie wasn't that huge at the time, I do feel it could've introduced Sarah to a larger mainstream audience. I could easily picture her in the role... it would just be an added bonus to get rid of Danes.

Thinking about it, Vincent Kartheiser and Michelle Tractenberg would've been perfect as Romeo and Juliet.

 

[white avenger]

Really? Sarah was ever considered for that part? I can't imagine her playing a role where her basic costume was nothing more than body paint and a few strategically placed foam rubber applications, considering her aversion to nudity and the fact that, because of the time required to apply the "costume," the use of a body double would be totally impractical.

In any event, I read somewhere that she was considered for the female lead in "The Golden Compass," but lost out to a younger actress.

Now, this illustrates perfectly just how much I care about the X Men movie franchise. I definitely remember watching the first one with my granddaughter, and I've seen the Logan spinoffs, but I'm more a fan of the MCU series, especially Captain America. (Or maybe it just illustrates how much my dirty old mind visualizes Sarah in blue body paint)

But, wasn't Rogue the one that Logan sort of adopted in the first movie? Even back then, Sarah would have been too old to play that part.

 

[fauxindigo]

Sarah would not have been too old to play Rogue in 2000 lol

Gangs of New York-- SMG would have been infinitely better than Cameron Diaz in the role of Jenny- and I like Cameron Diaz too.

 

[Athena]

But, wasn't Rogue the one that Logan sort of adopted in the first movie? Even back then, Sarah would have been too old to play that part.

Sarah was born in 77, Anna was born in 82, so not that much of a difference. They age down actors all the time for 'teen' roles.

But honestly, Rogue should never have been a 'teen' in the first place.....

 

[Anyanka Bunny Slayer]

...wasn't Rogue the one that Logan sort of adopted in the first movie? Even back then, Sarah would have been too old to play that part.

Yes, that was Rogue...I think that's the only time I didn't find Anna Paquin annoying. Well, wait a minute...she was cute in The Piano and Almost Famous; but after she was cast as Sookie in True Blood, I couldn't even hear her voice without flinching. Plus, she Stephen Moyer (Bill Compton) had that affair while he was married...his poor wife had no idea, until it was too late.

Anyway, I believe that SMG would've been brilliant as Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix. Dye her hair red, and that's that. I can really picture it!

 

[Mrs Gordo]

I picked Romeo + Juliet (I think Danes is terrible there she's utterly 'blah' and we're supposed to think anyone would fall for her?), I wouldn't have minded seeing her in Stardust either (maybe I just have a Clare Danes problem 😛 ) Seriously though, I think Romeo + Juliet would've been the potential to change her career, it wouldn't have been in the sci-fi/fantasy realm, takes her away from the ditzy blondes like Cher and the Urban Legends girl, and though I seem to remember that the movie wasn't that huge at the time, I do feel it could've introduced Sarah to a larger mainstream audience. I could easily picture her in the role... it would just be an added bonus to get rid of Danes.

A whole lotta this. I have a love/hate relationship with Clare Danes. For some reason I like the stuff she is in. I loved My So Called Life, I loved R+J, I love Homeland but she takes it to level 18 when she should be at a level like 10. And when she cries she looks horrible and it makes me uncomfortable. I think SMG is the perfect example of what Clare Danes SHOULD be doing. When SMG cries or I am destroyed. She is great with the pain. As Joss has said she is Jimmy Stewart. She would have been great in Romeo + Juliet and on top of that I think she would have worked great with Leo who is just a phenomenal actor. Plus you know, she already had some experience in the whole star crossed lovers arena! lol.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

I picked Romeo + Juliet (I think Danes is terrible there she's utterly 'blah' and we're supposed to think anyone would fall for her?), I wouldn't have minded seeing her in Stardust either (maybe I just have a Clare Danes problem 😛 ) Seriously though, I think Romeo + Juliet would've been the potential to change her career, it wouldn't have been in the sci-fi/fantasy realm, takes her away from the ditzy blondes like Cher and the Urban Legends girl, and though I seem to remember that the movie wasn't that huge at the time, I do feel it could've introduced Sarah to a larger mainstream audience. I could easily picture her in the role... it would just be an added bonus to get rid of Danes.

Juliet is supposed to be kinda blah. Sarah has a strong personality. I don't think she could have given the subdued performance required. She would be a much better Romeo. I mean, she is a great Romeo in the Bangel relationship.

 

[EarthLogic]

Juliet is supposed to be kinda blah.

I strongly disagree. Rather it is Romeo who is the blah one. Juliet is stronger, more intelligent and assertive.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

I strongly disagree. Rather it is Romeo who is the blah one. Juliet is stronger, more intelligent and assertive.

It is a fun play, but for me it is all about Mercutio. I tend to read it like this: Romeo falls madly in love with Rosalyn, but after sleeping with her, he loses his soul interest and falls in love with Juliet. Juliet is a Capulet and therefore unavailable, so Romeo's infatuation turns into a dangerous obsession. People die. Carpet drops.

I'll grant you that Juliet has better lines than Romeo, I just could not imagine Sarah saying them. Maybe the problem is that Sarah = Buffy for me. I find it much easier to separate some of the other actors from their characters.

 

[Mrs Gordo]

Juliet is supposed to be kinda blah. Sarah has a strong personality. I don't think she could have given the subdued performance required. She would be a much better Romeo. I mean, she is a great Romeo in the Bangel relationship.

Oh no. I strongly disagree with this as well. Juliet is breaking out of the mold. She is written to be stubborn and defiant of what is expected of her by her family, her parents. She is persistent in what she wants. I read Juliet as much more of a strong lead. I don't know if stronger than Romeo. I would argue that they were both extremely passionate and strong individuals.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

Oh no. I strongly disagree with this as well. Juliet is breaking out of the mold. She is written to be stubborn and defiant of what is expected of her by her family, her parents. She is persistent in what she wants. I read Juliet as much more of a strong lead. I don't know if stronger than Romeo. I would argue that they were both extremely passionate and strong individuals.

Shakespeare wrote good women, especially for his time. However, personally, with all respect to the bard, I enjoy watching SMG yell at Angel in Amends and beat up Spike in Dead Things. I do not want to see her walk through a garden and mumble about roses and their names. It is not coincidental that Sarah was named after a rapid firing handgun, though I guess she would still be a bad ass had she any other name.

 

[EarthLogic]

It is a fun play, but for me it is all about Mercutio. I tend to read it like this: Romeo falls madly in love with Rosalyn, but after sleeping with her, he loses his soul interest and falls in love with Juliet. Juliet is a Capulet and therefore unavailable, so Romeo's infatuation turns into a dangerous obsession. People die. Carpet drops.

Haha!

I'll grant you that Juliet has better lines than Romeo, I just could not imagine Sarah saying them. Maybe the problem is that Sarah = Buffy for me. I find it much easier to separate some of the other actors from their characters.

Yeah I was just disagreeing with your take on the play itself. I dunno about the Sarah-as-Juliet question. I agree Buffy is iconic and it is hard to separate SMG from the role.