Russell Crowe Does(n't) Want to Play Steve Irwin

Ah, the smell of unsubstantiated gossip and hasty retractions. First came the shocking news that actor Russell Crowe was interested in playing the lead in a Steve Irwin biopic -- and then came word that the actor was "appalled" by the suggestion.

Looks like we can blame In Touch Weekly for the non-news.

Here's where you'll find the original casting news, and here's where you'll find Crowe's ultra-hasty denial.

Fun stuff.

Comments

Now it's dark

Kirby K

That's good, cuz I don't think anybody wants him to play Steve Irwin.

Sep 26 - 07:57 AM

dracus

Cap Nord

Crikey!! I can't imagine that anyone would even ask Crowe to take the role. Kudos to Crowe for refusing to make money off his longtime friend and for demonstrating such class for Irwin's memory and compassion for his family.

Sep 26 - 08:44 AM

timov

bob jones

i'm sure this story was a load of crap to begin with, maybe just to get a reaction out of crowe, which it did. nobody can play irwin but irwin. and why would they want to? his story is already told on countless hours of video, and his legacy is already made.

Sep 26 - 09:25 AM

alsanali

Alsan Ali

A movie will come.

Some day.

Sep 26 - 09:37 AM

Pleasuretown

Nic Markham

Not everyone needs a biopic. This guy wasn't even that great. Seriously, Biopics like Ray and Walk the Line i understand, but the Crocodile Hunter? Honestly.

Sep 26 - 11:40 AM

Ten Ton Alien

ffdsd fdsafsafd

Good, get someone else!

Sep 26 - 11:54 AM

cgcbooks

Robert Kimberlin

I vote for Paul Hogan.

Sep 26 - 02:23 PM

Mikeal420

David Goldman

from what i've heard (it's gossip, not confirmed) but Steve Irwin was not a fan of Crocodile Dundee, because he thought it promoted hunting and cruelty to animals, something Irwin, as a conservationist, was opposed to

Plus, Paul Hogan still can not be forgiven for "Crocodile Dundee In Los Angeles", no matter how desperate he was for a role

And to the guy who says a Irwin biopic is not worth it because he was not that important, I hope a gang of Australians show up at ur door

Sep 26 - 02:45 PM

Mikeal420

David Goldman

from what i've heard (it's gossip, not confirmed) but Steve Irwin was not a fan of Crocodile Dundee, because he thought it promoted hunting and cruelty to animals, something Irwin, as a conservationist, was opposed to

Plus, Paul Hogan still can not be forgiven for "Crocodile Dundee In Los Angeles", no matter how desperate he was for a role

And to the guy who says a Irwin biopic is not worth it because he was not that important, I hope a gang of Australians show up at ur door

Sep 26 - 02:45 PM

kenporules

Tim K

Hot damn, Russell Crowe would be the last person I'd choose to play Steve. Of course, the very idea of a biopic right now seems pretty ridiculous, though he probably has a pretty damn interesting history.

Also, I'm one of the few people that thought Crocodile Dundee in LA was decent feel-good throwaway entertainment.

Sep 26 - 03:33 PM

blorenze

brian lorenzen

If anyone plays Steve Irwin, it should be Trey Parker. Yeah, I said it.

Sep 26 - 06:01 PM

Reeven

Jud Widing

It amazes me how quickly everyone decides a biopic is needed. Hell, I'm still amazed a few years managed to go by before the first wave of 9/11 movies came out.

In all seriousness, I know movie execs are, for the most part, mindless middle aged men who look to VH1 to tell them what is trendy and what will make money, and that they could care less about the quality of a film, but are they truly THAT heartless that they feel the need to make movies about everything immediatly after they happen? At least, if it absolutly MUST be made, give it some time!

Sep 26 - 07:54 PM

Chim

Robby Robertson

[b]Proceeds go to conservation?[/b]
Most all the money Steve made through merchandising, documentaries, and Collision Course went towards conservation and Australia Zoo. Though Steve Irwin did participate in a Hollywood money-picture, it was for a directly good cause and still contained messages of respect and appreciation towards animals.

Though people who didn't watch him frequently -- hell, I'm sure some regular viewers totally missed the mark -- might be skeptical about this, Steve Irwin was an exceptionally sharp and preceptive man. Some might not think so because his documentaries didn't contain a great amount of information about the animals, and some criticised them as being uninformative. But Steve understood his medium and, very deliberately, chose to make that kind of documentary. He only talked about obvious and interesting things, and often endangerment. What those critics didn't get is that the real message was what he tried to get you to feel. He might have moved and sounded like curiosity on legs, but he always knew what he was making and that facts and excessive analysis could only dilute the real purpose: getting close.

My point? From what I've observed about Steve as a person, I don't think he would have stepped into and been sensationalized by Hollywood if it weren't for the funds it could generate. I also think he wouldn't want this film to be made regardless, because he saw himself as a member of the natural world, and everything in the natural world dies. He was in no more danger around extreme wildlife than many creatures that live there, and I think he'd want people to understand that though what happened to him is terrible, the amount of attention and exaltation his image has received following his death is an insult to everything he ever loved that died in a similar fashion, and that's a lot of crocs and critters.

So, there's three criteria to be met or this film is a sleight against everything he believed:
- The film is not about the glorification and criticism of the life, actions, and family of Steve, but about how he saw and tried to get others to see the world. Because Steve wouldn't want that kind of celebrity treatment unless it was used to spread his message further.
- The animals used in the picture are not exploited or maligned in any way, not by animal treatment legislation standards, but by the standards of Steve Irwin. Because, even in Collision Course, Steve never tackled a Croc unless he needed to move it. And the reason he risked himself to move them with people power was because he would never sedate an animal unless absolutely necessary.
- A handsome share of the profits of this movie go to conservation.

Of course, I can't speak for Steve Irwin. I was a fan, and this is speculation.

Sep 27 - 08:18 AM

Mikeal420

David Goldman

[b]Long Statment there[/b]
Your statment is a little lengthy for a RottenTomatoes forum, but I completly agree with you. People watch Crocodile Hunter and think it's just a big joke because Steve Irwin made it so fun, but he was a smart man and an expert on animals, how else would he have the ability to approah wild animals the way he did?

And how is making a biopic a bad thing if his life makes for an interesting story??? The only bad thing about biopics are BAD biopics

Sep 27 - 10:38 AM

Chim

Robby Robertson

[b]What's bad about a Steve Irwin biopic?[/b]
There's no story to tell. His job is on camera and the rest was family time. The animal scenes aren't fun if they're fake, and cruel if they use real animals. And Steve was the same whether he was being filmed or not, so there's nothing to be imagined either.

Sep 27 - 12:48 PM

Mikeal420

David Goldman

[b]Long Statment there[/b]
Your statment is a little lengthy for a RottenTomatoes forum, but I completly agree with you. People watch Crocodile Hunter and think it's just a big joke because Steve Irwin made it so fun, but he was a smart man and an expert on animals, how else would he have the ability to approah wild animals the way he did?

And how is making a biopic a bad thing if his life makes for an interesting story??? The only bad thing about biopics are BAD biopics

Sep 27 - 10:38 AM

Chim

Robby Robertson

[b]What's bad about a Steve Irwin biopic?[/b]
There's no story to tell. His job is on camera and the rest was family time. The animal scenes aren't fun if they're fake, and cruel if they use real animals. And Steve was the same whether he was being filmed or not, so there's nothing to be imagined either.

Sep 27 - 12:48 PM

Chim

Robby Robertson

[b]What's bad about a Steve Irwin biopic?[/b]
There's no story to tell. His job is on camera and the rest was family time. The animal scenes aren't fun if they're fake, and cruel if they use real animals. And Steve was the same whether he was being filmed or not, so there's nothing to be imagined either.

Sep 27 - 12:48 PM

Karl

John Locke

Russell Crowe doesnt have the right Aussie accent for the job. It would be like Billy Bob Thornton trying to play Al Capone.

Sep 27 - 05:05 PM

Horstradamus

Marius Horst

[b]huh[/b]
Crowe is an Aussie. Doesn't that qualify him as having an Aussie accent?

Sep 27 - 07:37 PM

Horstradamus

Marius Horst

[b]huh[/b]
Crowe is an Aussie. Doesn't that qualify him as having an Aussie accent?

Sep 27 - 07:37 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Cameron Diaz's 10 Best Movies

Five Favorite Films
Five Favorite Films

Brick Mansions star RZA

WonderCon
WonderCon

175 cosplay pictures

24 Frames
24 Frames

Experiments Gone Wrong!

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile