The Warriors Movie Site Forum

Was the movie that Thomas Waites left The Warriors to film John Carpenter's The Thing? He was only in some small T.V movie between then and The Warriors and also The Thing is a very special effects type movie so it would explain the 3 year gap. Can anyone help out on this one?

He left for a fil called ....And justice for all. It starred Al Pacino.

He probably got a bad name for himself for walking out so probably had trouble getting work.

Thomas Waites did leave The Warriors to work on ...And Justice For All with Al Pacino. Certainly a more "prestigious" project and one in which Waites does give a good performance, so his leaving our favorite film is understandable, if not entirely agreeable. IMHO, the Pacino film is is just ok, with Pacino giving one of his patented, none too subtle performances as a fighting attorney.

In a 1980s interview, Waites discusses a particularly poignant scene he played with Pacino. Pacino told him that he felt the bit would garner Waites a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Unfortunately, it did not make the final cut.

Waites had far more success as a stage actor in New York, both on Broadway and off-Broadway. He co-starred in one of the acclaimed and popular revivals of David Mamet's "American Buffalo" with Pacino. Waites later worked with Pacino on an early attempt to get Born on the Fourth of July to the screen. Pacino would have played the lead that Tom Cruise later essayed for Oliver Stone in his production of the film.

Thanks that cleared things up and I understand more of why he left .

I do think it was very uncool for Waites to leave filming "The Warriors" for another project. I'm sure he asked permission first, but when he was refused, he should have been professional enough to finish the project the already committed to.

Al Pacino was hot stuff and still is I guess, but seriously, is he not the King of Over-Acting or what? I mean, I like him and all, and "Dog Day Afternoon" was pretty decent (although I think his partner was better), but really, in every Pacino film I've ever seen, there's at least one or two scenes where he just goes off and you just gotta roll your eyes up and ask yourself "what the hell is he doing?" The top overacting film of all time has got to be Scarface - that film is now seen as a "cult comedy classic" instead of the gripping drama it was intended, solely because of Pacino's overacting. There's no way I'd put Pacino anywhere close to someone like DeNiro for instance, yet somehow he's considered one of the greatest actors of the past three decades.

My point is, to leave a film you committed to, to work with Pacino, the bad rep and backlash you're gonna get doesn't seem worth it at all.

And you know how most films are shoy way out of sequence - I wonder if there's a scene or two on the cutting room floor from later in the film that had Waites as The Fox in it, but obviously scrapped because they couldn't link them to scenes earlier in the film with him in it? Just a thought. I'll always like Waites as The Fox though. I wonder if he regrets leaving now that the film has become so legendary.

Hey Scarface rules don't bag it!

Snow wrote:Hey Scarface rules don't bag it!

Scarface is one of the most over rated movies ever.

Snow wrote:Hey Scarface rules don't bag it!

I think Scarface works as what it was not supposed to be - a cult comedy classic lol. I believe film company even knows that as I recall some promo for the DVD release headed in that direction. Not totally I guess because the studio as to keep some pride because after all is was made as a serious drama lol. I'll still take the original 1932 version wit the great Paul Muni any day.

Kinda reminds me (showing age again here) when "Mommy Dearest" came out in 1981. When it came out, the newspaper and TV ads were all serious, but word of mouth *quickly* made the film a cult comedy classic, and I recall even before the film's first theater run ended, the studio wasted no time and changed the promo in newspapers and TV to reflect it as such. Interesting!

What part of Scarface is supposed to be comedy classic? Please don't tell me the chainsaw bathroom scene either. I remember one funny scene, when Manny stuck his tongue out at the bikini chick at the beach.

Scarface is an all time great.

I can't remember laughing much at it either

cyrus7041 wrote:What part of Scarface is supposed to be comedy classic? Please don't tell me the chainsaw bathroom scene either. I remember one funny scene, when Manny stuck his tongue out at the bikini chick at the beach.

That's just it, no part of Scarface is supposed to be comedy. But as I was saying above it's now considered a cult comedy film (like "Mommy Dearest" is after being filmed as a straight drama) by many, like a "get the guys together with some beers and have a blast" type of a film, beause of Pacino's unbelievable overacting, especially with the bad accent. The studio noticed this and even went in that direction with the promo for the DVD release. My point is, Pacino is not that great an actor as so many thinks he is, IMO of course.

So of course Scarface wasn't filmed as a comedy, it's just Pacino's performance that makes it so easy to laugh at. I'll still take te '32 original (and Paul Muni even does his share of overacting in that one too).

Green Meanie one of your favourite movies is knights of the round table which is made in 1953 and you have the nerve to say that scarface is overrated.

Snow wrote:Green Meanie one of your favourite movies is knights of the round table which is made in 1953 and you have the nerve to say that scarface is overrated.

I sure do. Becuase I like a movie from the 50's, Scarface isn't overrated? How exactly does your analogy work?

The funniest parts of Scarface are the fact that Tony swims in blow throughout the hole movie and manages to not pay a visit to the hospital and he manages to say f*ck 182 times. Other than that it's a great film.