Mel Gibson to cameo in The Hangover 2

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 10/18/10 at 10:17pm

interesting... eh I'll still see the movie because I loved the first one
http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/46-mel-gibson-to-attempt-comeback-in-the-hangover-2

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 10/18/10 at 10:29pm

More like stumbled onto the set drunk & they thought "Hey, lets keep it."

[StockardFan]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 8:50am

More like stumbled onto the set drunk & they thought "Hey, lets keep it."

LOL

[Dollypop]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 6:33pm

I wish I could come up with something snide here but I can't. I used to admire Mel Gibson very much. He seemed to be a good actor who was devoted to his wife and children. All of that seemed to have changed after THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

What happened?

Were we being fed PR hype about him or did he let success go to his head and "go Hollywood"?

Whatever happened has resulted in something very sad.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 7:29pm

I wasn't crazy about the first movie, I am sure I will not see the second one now.

[Q]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 7:52pm

I've been done with him since his anti-gay remarks back at the beginning of the 90's - which is well before the gay S/M flick, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

People said no one would work with him again - pretty much a joke in this industry. Much of the demographic target for the HANGOVER movie(s) was supportive of him in online posts after this last debacle with his girlfriend. It won't hurt their sales at all - in fact, it might help.

Won't get my money.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 8:28pm

Q, that's when I was done with him also. I think it was around '91 or '92. I remember everyone talking about it at the bar I was going to then.

[Q]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 8:52pm

Back in '91, apparently (see link.)

Honestly, I still saw his movies after that, I just didn't have much use for him as a person. I didn't stop the movies until PASSION, which turned my stomach. Not to mention some of the things he had to say during its filming. The entire thing - including the marketing and sales of souvenirs outside theaters was revolting.
Advocate link.

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 9:37pm

I never had any interest in Passion of the Christ, and never saw it. After his anti-Semitic remarks, I was done with him - I haven't watched Braveheart or Mad Max or any other movie with him since then.

I was a fan of the first Hangover - I thought it was hilarious. I'm not so sure I'm willing to see the second one if Gibson is in it. Maybe I'll wait for HBO, because I just can't see spending my money on something that supports him.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/19/10 at 11:43pm

Q, I stopped seeing his movies after the comments. I wasn't putting a penny in his pocket after that. Most of my friends feel the same way.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:33am

I saw the first HANGOVER film on HBO and enjoyed it more than I thought I would, some good fun. Mel Gibson's participation in the sequel ensures that I won't be seeing the sequel, even on cable.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 11:40am

I didn't like The Hangover until the credits started rolling. I thought that was HYSTERICAL.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 10/20/10 at 9:03pm

i thought this was interesting... could Zack Galifianakis (or however it's spelled) be referring to Mel Gibson??
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/is_zach_galifianakis_fed_up_wi.html

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/21/10 at 6:49pm

No longer attached to the movie:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/mel-gibsons-hangover-2-ca_1_n_772149.html

"I thought Mel would have been great in the movie and I had the full backing of Jeff Robinov and his team. But I realize filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and this decision ultimately did not have the full support of my entire cast and crew."

eatlasagna's post could be right (or Zach could be just going through a phase of wanting to be taken seriously as an actor). Considering the first movie actively promoted Mike Tyson's cameo (and people still went and many enjoyed the movie, myself included), it seems they publicized this to see how it would be received.

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/21/10 at 9:14pm

Interesting that Galifanakis had that much influence. I'm glad he did - now I can go enjoy the movie.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 10/22/10 at 10:08am

I heard on the radio this morning that it was the "actors" who objected to Mr. Gibson. Note the plural.

A sequel can be made without the same director, writer or producer, but it very difficult not to have the original stars.

Even B list actors have collective clout. Factor in their agents, and the clout is much larger.

Mr. Gibson could take his multi-millions and return to Australia and make (and finance) a host of small-budget films for the rest of his life and probably make money.

Watching anyone commit career suicide is disturbing, but here is a famous and powerful man who knew his limitations and yet still did not seek help to avoid situations. Mel Gibson has been at AA meetings over the years. Friends had seen him in NYC, so I must assume that he attended in LA as well. He has had a massive and self-destructive slip. He is very lucky that he has money to cushion his fall.

Nobody wins.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/22/10 at 10:31am

We all win when Mel Gibson is nowhere to be seen. His films have been crap for decades. Basically, nothing he's done since YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY is worth the time it takes to sit through, least of all that idiotic BRAVEHEART or PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

[Overkill]

Posted: 10/22/10 at 5:43pm

I find it very dissapointing that he's not involved anymore. I hate what he did, and because of it a movie I was eagerly awaiting he starred in, The Beaver, has been put on hold. Also, if Mike Tyson (A rapist and an ear cannibal) can be in the movie and be looked at as a funny great part of the movie, why can't Mel Gibson? Who is a better actor than Tyson, by the way.

But I think him being in this would have boosted it's appeal a bit and would have made it a great box office hit (which I suppose it already will be). I just LOVED the first one, and I don't see how they can make a second one. What they went through in Vegas is a once in a lifetime thing. Now they're going to go through the same thing (for the most part) but in a foreign place. It's hard for me to buy that. Either way, I'll be seeing it. I just don't want there to be a third one. It doesn't deserve to be turned into an American Pie or National Lampoon.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/22/10 at 5:58pm

I don't think Mel's acting skills really factor into a comparison for Mike Tyson (and Tyson was simply playing himself as a sub-plot to the lunacy of the group's drunken madness that night, stealing his tiger etc.).

Liam Neeson is reportedly taking the part.

[Overkill]

Posted: 10/22/10 at 6:23pm

Still, he's taking the cameo role like Tyson did, playing himself or not.

Neeson is a bit random. I'd like to see someone really respectable take the role, like Michael Caine (talk about random) but that's just dream casting. lol

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 10/22/10 at 6:31pm

Liam Neeson isn't respectable?

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/22/10 at 6:49pm

Not that it even remotely excuses the crime, but Tyson's crime was 17 years ago. It was far enough away that the audience could separate him from the crime.

Gibson's problems are on-going. There's no separation now.

Again, not saying Tyson should be forgiven, just that the reactions are understandable.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/10 at 4:09am

Even if you feel that Tyson is just as bad as Gibson, why would the precedent of Tyson having a cameo suddenly make it okay for Gibson to have one, too?

[Overkill]

Posted: 10/23/10 at 11:18pm

"Liam Neeson isn't respectable?"

I phrased that a bit wrong. I didn't mean he wasn't respectable, I just mean I don't see it as a funny thing, having Liam Neeson cameo. I'm sure he'll be great and funny, but the name attached to the movie isn't funny to me. That's just my opinion.

"...why would the precedent of Tyson having a cameo suddenly make it okay for Gibson to have one, too?"

Because, why wouldn't it?

[Plum]

Posted: 10/24/10 at 12:30am

Because doing one wrong thing doesn't make it okay to do another wrong thing, even if you hold those wrongs to be morally equivalent.