- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would Blazing Saddles have been better or worse with Richard Pryor as the Sherriff?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:19 pm
I'm reading Richard Zoglin's book "Comedy at the Edge," about the stand-up comedians of the 60's and 70s. I knew that Pryor had helped Mel Brooks write the script for Blazing Saddles and was rejected for the role that eventually went to Cleavon Little, but I never knew the details.
The studio said no to Pryor because he was coked up 24/7 during those years and was wildly unreliable. He missed a number of gigs, including a scheduled performance on the Ed Sullivan show. He also urinated from the stage toward a female patron in a night club because she wasn't laughing at his jokes, stood naked (minus his cowboy boots) on a blackjack table in the middle of a casino, and did one performance at a night club lying on the floor behind the curtain. Zoglin doesn't mention if Brooks fought for Pryor or not, but regardless, the role went to Cleavon Little and Richard Pryor was enraged at being passed over.
IMO, the movie was better with Cleavon Little in the role. He was a legit dramatic actor and by playing the role straight he made a greater contrast between himself and the lunacy around him. Pryor would have been funnier, but the movie would not have been as good IMO.
Agree? Disagree?
`
The studio said no to Pryor because he was coked up 24/7 during those years and was wildly unreliable. He missed a number of gigs, including a scheduled performance on the Ed Sullivan show. He also urinated from the stage toward a female patron in a night club because she wasn't laughing at his jokes, stood naked (minus his cowboy boots) on a blackjack table in the middle of a casino, and did one performance at a night club lying on the floor behind the curtain. Zoglin doesn't mention if Brooks fought for Pryor or not, but regardless, the role went to Cleavon Little and Richard Pryor was enraged at being passed over.
IMO, the movie was better with Cleavon Little in the role. He was a legit dramatic actor and by playing the role straight he made a greater contrast between himself and the lunacy around him. Pryor would have been funnier, but the movie would not have been as good IMO.
Agree? Disagree?
`
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 1:51 pm
17
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:20 pm to L.A.
You can’t improve on perfection.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:25 pm to L.A.
I've thought about this before. I enjoyed Pryor's movie roles but I think Cleavon made that role iconic.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 12:31 pm to L.A.
IMO, the movie was better with Cleavon Little in the role. He was a legit dramatic actor and by playing the role straight he made a greater contrast between himself and the lunacy around him. Pryor would have been funnier, but the movie would not have been better IMO
A movie full of comedy and comedic actors Clevon was the straight-man
A movie full of comedy and comedic actors Clevon was the straight-man
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:02 pm to L.A.
I would love to see what it would have looked like. I think he could have done a great job. The part about his unreliability makes me think that he might have actually given a subpar performance at that time.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:06 pm to L.A.
The Complicated Friendship of Comedy Duo Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder
quote:
"When he was good he was wonderful, when he was bad, he was awful... in his throwing things away, throwing the time away, the hours away," he lamented. "What can you do? Give him a hit, and then give him a kiss." Gene Wilder
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:07 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
movie was better with Cleavon Little in the role. He was a legit dramatic actor and by playing the role straight he made a greater contrast between himself and the lunacy around him.
100% agree. He created that important contrast. Pryor was brilliant, but his natural comedy would've taken away from that contrast.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:24 pm to L.A.
Cleavon was great.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:42 pm to L.A.
I think, if you had asked me this without seeing the movie, I would have said of course - Pryor was a comedy legend.
That said, it's really hard to see anyone BUT Cleavon Little doing it now. He had great comedic timing, but he was also more physically imposing than Pryor. I think the movie is a bit different, in some scenes, with Pryor than Little.
I don't know if "worse" is the correct word, but it would be "different" and whether or not that those changes would be appealing to someone will differ. IMHO though - it would have been worse, but not by a lot. Pryor was an amazing comedic performer.
That said, it's really hard to see anyone BUT Cleavon Little doing it now. He had great comedic timing, but he was also more physically imposing than Pryor. I think the movie is a bit different, in some scenes, with Pryor than Little.
I don't know if "worse" is the correct word, but it would be "different" and whether or not that those changes would be appealing to someone will differ. IMHO though - it would have been worse, but not by a lot. Pryor was an amazing comedic performer.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 1:42 pm to CatfishJohn
That was LA post,, i copied and pasted
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:08 pm to L.A.
" 'Scuse me while I whip this out!"
Bart: The drunk in number two must be awake.
[walks over to the cell]
Bart: Are we awake?
Jim: We're not sure. Are we... Black?
Bart: Yes, we are.
Jim: Then we're awake... but we're very puzzled.
Bart: Ooh, baby, you are so talented! And they are SO dumb!
Bart: The drunk in number two must be awake.
[walks over to the cell]
Bart: Are we awake?
Jim: We're not sure. Are we... Black?
Bart: Yes, we are.
Jim: Then we're awake... but we're very puzzled.
Bart: Ooh, baby, you are so talented! And they are SO dumb!
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:17 pm to L.A.
Little was not only a great straight man, but he brought a very high sense of dignity in the face of overwhelmingly terrible treatment and chaos.
He was perfect. Pryor would be funny but I do not think he could have brought that aspect to the role.
He was perfect. Pryor would be funny but I do not think he could have brought that aspect to the role.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:18 pm to L.A.
quote:
IMO, the movie was better with Cleavon Little in the role. He was a legit dramatic actor and by playing the role straight he made a greater contrast between himself and the lunacy around him. Pryor would have been funnier, but the movie would not have been as good IMO.
Exactly.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:18 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
A movie full of comedy and comedic actors Clevon was the straight-man
Kinda the point, no?
I generally agree with the consensus: Pryor would have made it an entirely different (though, not necessarily lesser) movie.
It's a fun thought exercise, but that role is, as was previously said, made iconic by Cleavon.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:35 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Little was not only a great straight man, but he brought a very high sense of dignity in the face of overwhelmingly terrible treatment and chaos.
This all day long. Little showed not an ounce of indignation or outrage at the awful way he was treated throughout the movie, which underscored the underlying joke of the entire film: "All of this over-the-top racism is so ridiculous that you can't even be mad at it, you can only roll your eyes and laugh at it." I don't think Pryor would have leaned into that aspect of things as heavily as Little did, and the final product would have suffered as a result.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:41 pm to L.A.
This is like asking would "Forrest Gump" have been better or worse will Bill Murray, or Robin Williams as Riddler in Batman Forever instead of Jim Carrey.
When one person is so synonymous with a role, trying to envision someone else playing that part is really challenging regardless of that other person's abilities.
When one person is so synonymous with a role, trying to envision someone else playing that part is really challenging regardless of that other person's abilities.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:51 pm to L.A.
Pryor was a physical comedic actor, his playing the sheriff would have been silly and over the top
Little was handsome and smooth and looked like a Hollywood Western Hero. By casting Little they leaned into the handsome and cool hero and that really worked.
Little was handsome and smooth and looked like a Hollywood Western Hero. By casting Little they leaned into the handsome and cool hero and that really worked.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 4:46 pm to L.A.
i think worse
I like prior but Cleavon Little is so perfect.
I like prior but Cleavon Little is so perfect.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 8:50 pm to L.A.
I think Pryor would've been funnier, but not as authentic.
Little was great & perfect casting.
Little was great & perfect casting.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 10:18 pm to L.A.
Cleavon made the character smooth. Pryor would have played his panicked and neurotic.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News