PHArchivist
Master Member
Just watched the Digi-book Blu-Ray version, plus all the documentaries (three hours worth).
Scott was fantastic. Deserved his award; no doubt.
But...
Could Gene Hackman have been better?
Watching the docs, though Scott (in his make-up) receives accolades for resembling Patton, Hackman - naturaly - looks more like the real General.
And...
--Hackman was only three years younger than Scott, and both men were nearly 20 years younger than Patton (hence Hackman - with make-up too could have pulled it off)
--Hackman is ALSO an Academy Award winning actor (from the same time frame no less)
--And it is no secret that Hackman can provied a screen presence, intensity, and down-right temper like there's no tomorrow
So, just wondering...
By the way, this question is best addressed to those that have also seen the real Patton in the documentaries.
Scott was fantastic. Deserved his award; no doubt.
But...
Could Gene Hackman have been better?
Watching the docs, though Scott (in his make-up) receives accolades for resembling Patton, Hackman - naturaly - looks more like the real General.
And...
--Hackman was only three years younger than Scott, and both men were nearly 20 years younger than Patton (hence Hackman - with make-up too could have pulled it off)
--Hackman is ALSO an Academy Award winning actor (from the same time frame no less)
--And it is no secret that Hackman can provied a screen presence, intensity, and down-right temper like there's no tomorrow
So, just wondering...
By the way, this question is best addressed to those that have also seen the real Patton in the documentaries.