Studios pushed Johnny Depp for Pulp Fiction, but Quentin Tarantino wouldn’t have it
Quentin Tarantino wanted Tim Roth in the role of Pumpkin despite outside pressure to bring Johnny Depp onto the project
Aux News Johnny Depp
There’s an alternate universe out there where Johnny Depp plays Pumpkin in Pulp Fiction—but thanks to the better judgement of Quentin Tarantino, it’s not a world we have to live in. In a new interview with the 2 Bears, 1 Cave podcast, Tarantino recalls the casting process for his 1994 classic, and reveals that there was a push from the studio to add Depp to the bill of players despite Tarantino’s concerns.
Tarantino’s new comments certainly don’t exist in a vacuum. Recently, a Pulp Fiction casting “wish list” purportedly from the director went viral on social media. The document listed Depp as being the second choice actor for Pumpkin behind Tim Roth (who eventually got the part.)
“On the internet there’s a thing floating around about my wish list of the cast of Pulp Fiction, it’s kind of floating around and it’s not. It’s not that, not really,” Tarantino begins. “I didn’t know exactly who I wanted to play this part or that part, so I wrote a giant list with a ton of names. I wanted to get them all pre-approved sure and I didn’t know if it’s gonna work out, if I would like vibe with the person or if they would even do a good job but I wanted to get them approved.”
He continues: “It’s kind of all over the place but that was kind of the idea, I wanted to be able to explore it and go all over the place but then I’m also really very opinionated.”
Once he had a large list going, Tarantino says he started to feel studio pressure, in the form of questions as to why he wanted Roth for the role above Depp, and refusals to offer Roth the role until other actors had turned it down.
In response to the hemming and hawing, Tarantino recalls asking studio execs: “‘Do you think Johnny Depp playing the role of Pumpkin in this movie, which is the opening scene and the closing scene that’s it, do you think that will add that much to the box office?’” (Spoiler alert: the film actually worked out pretty well without him.)
88 Comments
He made the right call.
Tim Roth did a great job, but it would have been nice to see Samuel L. Jackson fucking up Depp with some truth.
This isn’t a very “AV Club” headline. Let me have a go:Quentin Tarantino finally speaks out on not casting rakish abuser, Johnny Depp in Pulp Fiction
Aubrey Plaza psychologically tortured Quentin Tarantino into speaking out against casting Johnny Depp in Pulp Fiction
Actors mentally tortured by Aubrey Plaza
START SLIDESHOW —>
Yet on a serious note: if a man did to a woman what she claims to have done? Nobody would be laughing.
I wonder how abuser Amber Heard feels about all this?
Who cares? I wonder how Florence Pugh feels.
At what point does Chandler weigh in?
After about 15 beers usually.
They haven’t gotten to that chapter of his book yet.
Could I *be* the shepherd any more?
Can this BE anymore of a wacky headline?!?
You just gave me flashbacks to a few years ago. I can’t remember who it was, but I think they set the record for “number of G/O sites with nearly the same identical article about [celebrity] opinion” – it was on AVC, Gizmodo, Jezebel, Splinter, and I think another one. It’s killing me, I can’t remember who it was.
AVC, the Root, and Jezebel all tried to convince us that Ellie Kemper was a grand wizard in the Ku Klux Klan just because she went to a weird dance in St. Louis when she was 18. Could that be it?
Oh yeah, that might be it. I was thinking it was longer ago, but that sounds right.
I got a Community notification for this?
You mad I correctly labeled her an abuser? If so: why?
The pot may be about to call the kettle, but you’re weird.
To be clear: they are both abusive pieces of shit. But people got caught up with this MeToo bullshit and seemed to take her side…at first. Thankfully the pendulum swings both ways and we are moving beyond “she’s a woman so believe her”. I mean, MeToo kinda died when progressives didn’t believe Tara Reade’s accusation against Biden, but that’s a tale for another time.
“MeToo kinda died when progressives didn’t believe Tara Reade’s accusation against Biden”Nah, it died when nothing really happened to any of these dudes except Weinstein and Cosby, and those two cases were in the works beforehand anyway.
Christine Blasey Ford couldn’t even prove she ever met Kavanaugh, yet was believed. Yet Reade wasn’t
You provided details when talking about Ford, but not Reade. Why would that be?
I provided details about both lol. One could prove they met the person they are accusing, the other could not. Go on son: guess which one is which, fucking try me 🙂
“One could prove they met the person they are accusing, the other could not”That wasn’t in your original comment. I’ll rephrase my question. Both women made accusations of sexual assault against powerful men, and both women’s claims were dismissed. In your original comment, you pointed out that Ford’s claim was dismissed because she couldn’t prove she’d even met Kavanaugh. Yet you provided no reason as to why Reade’s claims were dismissed other than to insinuate that there’s some sort of conspiracy.And I’m curious as to why you did it like that.
No I’m saying progressives believed Ford DESPITE the fact she couldn’t even show she ever met the dude. Yet balked at believing Reade, who could prove she had met Biden. I’m not sure if the Republicans in power correctly noted she can’t even prove she was ever in the same room with Kavanaugh. I’m consistent: I don’t believe either of them, so I hope you weren’t aiming at noting a fictional double standard. I just can’t help noting how progressives essentially told Reade to fuck off while metaphorically stroking Ford off.Neither are believable, but one was believed. Not due to any evidence, but based purely on who she accused. Oh sure Republicans play the same games, but in theory progressives are supposed to be better. Believe women…unless it’s really fucking inconvenient.In other words: neither seemed to be telling the truth, but progressives magically decided the one telling the truth must be the one accusing a republican about to be put on the Supreme Court. Reade was rightfully scrutinized, Ford wasn’t, despite the holes in her story. And when I say Ford wasn’t scrutinized, I mean by the same people who took a fucking magnifying glass to Reades life. And then the walking joke that is Michael Avenati got involved in going after Kavanaugh. Lol you remember that grifter who had simps saying he should be president? Now going to jail while trump remains free. Basta!
Why is “prove I have once met the person who I’m accusing of sexual assault” the only metric that matters to you? Is there serioulsy no other context to Ford’s and Reade’s claims, or are they not important to you?
Not the only one, but it is pretty fucking important to at least show you’ve actually met the person you claim tried to rape you. Probably why it’s dumb as fuck to wait 35 years before reporting an alleged rape.You’re right additional context matters. Nobody at the party she claimed to be at that night backed up her claims either. Thanks for reminding me. It seems like you really want to justify the hypocrisy of people who believe Ford but not Reade. Yet there isn’t any justification, no additional context that makes it valid.
“Not the only one, but it is pretty fucking important to at least show
you’ve actually met the person you claim tried to rape you.”In Ford’s case, sure. In Reade’s case, it seems to be a very slight branch to rest a conclusion on. I have no idea why you’d want to do it that way.“It seems like you really want to justify the hypocrisy of people who believe Ford but not Reade.”You’d have to establish hypocrisy before I could start giving a shit about trying to allocate it anywhere. Baby steps, dude.
I never said I believe Reade because she can show she met him. But it’s an important first step in determining the truth, unless we are talking about telepathically raping someone one would have to at some point be in the same room with the supposed rapist.
“I never said I believe Reade because she can show she met him.”No, you didn’t, and I never claimed you did. But over the course of several comments, you also haven’t said anything else when it comes to her case.So you could why you’d get the impression that I’d got the impression that you believe Reade, using very little evidence to do so.
Like I said: i don’t think either of them are credible.
Seems kinda pointless to have brought it up then.
It’s simple: the #MeToo movement was widely embraced by progressives and Democrats. Yet these same people suddenly decided “believe all women” stopped with Tara Reade. The point was that Ford didn’t have any proof for her claims either, yet was universally believed on the left, yet Reade was not believed and I don’t recall any prominent Democrats asking her to come forward and testify. I didnt believe her, but I never pushed this “believe women” bullshit either.
It’s similar hypocrisy to how self proclaimed “anti fascists” here went utterly fucking silent when Trudeau began freezing the bank accounts of peaceful protesters. Just imagine if Trump did that to BLM protesters. Yet Trudeau can act like a fascist, wear blackface, etc. and it’s okay because he is on their team. That is the kind of hypocrisy I especially fucking hate, and yes it comes from both sides. There is nobody with the moral high ground here, just people who are vile in different way.
“Yet these same people suddenly decided “believe all women” stopped with Tara Reade”Yes, you’ve said this already, but you don’t bother exploring why that is, and instead rely on making vague inferences that there’s something sinister going on.
I can explain the why: because it was a democrat being accused, and not someone like Al Franken they could just toss under the bus with little harm done to their power.
It’s sort of like how they were too chicken shit to call out Biden’s racist “you aint black if you dont vote for me” bullshit.
As usual, the word “they” is doing a a lot of heavy lifting.
I’m not sure what is difficult to understand: democrats believed Ford but not Reade. Yet had no valid reasons for believing one over the other. Not sure how else to articulate their hypocritical bullshit. This is the part where, if you disagree, you provide a reason. Otherwise we are just going in circles.
“democrats believed Ford but not Reade.”Every single one? Even Sinema and Manchin? Did you read several months worth of NY Times papers? Because I guarantee they ran at least one Op-Ed that did a whole lot of hand wringing.
“Not sure how else to articulate their hypocritical bullshit.”That part’s easy. Politics is a contact sport, and Dems have finally learned a couple tricks, thank the gods. The last forty years have been embarrassing in that regard.“if you disagree”I don’t, at least not generally. I just find it amusing that you’re getting all worked up over *checks notes* political hypocrisy. Next thing you’ll be telling me is that is that Santa isn’t real.
By all means: name a single democrat in the senate or house who publicly said they didn’t believe Ford. It’s super peachy keen the NYT was *slightly* critical, but they arent in power. Even then I’d love you to show me someone at the NYT or WaPo who are not conservative and who did not believe Ford. And let me make a point here before you do: questioning the narrative is NOT the same as not believing.
I’d honestly be shocked if any left leaning writer at the Times or any left leaning outlet flat out said they didn’t believe Ford. I’d bet they tried to pretend they arent biased by attacking the accuser Michael Avenati brought forward(kinda like how 1 out of every 10 of their fact checks nails a democrat, so they can claim they are neutral). Or by attacking the credibility of the woman who said she had to think for 6 days before deciding Kavanaugh was a gang rapist. I’d be shocked if any of them ever said Ford was a liar, Ford was their star. The “believable” one.
“That part’s easy. Politics is a contact sport, and Dems have finally learned a couple tricks, thank the gods. The last forty years have been embarrassing in that regard.”Correct, democrats have forfeited the moral high ground(if they ever even had it, but that’s another debate. Assuming they had it at one point, it’s gone the way of the Dodo now) by behaving just like Republicans. There is no superior side here. Left wing, right wing? Both wings are attached to the same bird and the bird is a fucking vulture. The main difference is democrats are more subtle with their cruelty. If you’re a D&D fan, it’s like dems are devils and republicans are demons. Demons will just go all “hulk smash!” and devils will manipulate you into doing evil shit from behind the scenes. Chaotic Evil vs Lawful Evil.
“I don’t, at least not generally. I just find it amusing that you’re getting all worked up over *checks notes* political hypocrisy. Next thing you’ll be telling me is that is that Santa isn’t real.”“All worked up” is doing a lot of work there. Not like when I’m offline I’m sitting there shaking my fist going “those hypocritical motherfuckers!”, but I simply called out the hypocritical bullshit in a post here and you seemed to want an explanation so I tried to oblige. I mean whenever Republicans are hypocrites democrats and the mainstream media call it out they dont act like weasels and shrug and go “well everybody does it”.
Do you find it amusing when this site gets “all worked up” cuz Dave Chappelle makes an “offensive” joke or JK Rowling correctly says men can’t menstruate?
“There is no superior side here”Oh gods, I’ve been arguing with a fucking centrist all this time? Fuck this, I’m out.
So since you didn’t name any democrats who didn’t believe Ford I shall assume there are none.
I like how you conveniently use “you’re a centrist!” to avoid addressing any points I made. I accept your surrender kiddo, have a great day.
Heard has more concrete evidence of abuse then most women do, and the belief that this was some mastermind plotting for years to end Depp is fucking moronic. You don’t have to even do much research, the case in the UK, which actually fairly assessed the situation instead of the circus in the US lays it out pretty clearly. He abused her horribly, and she eventually started fighting back.
The UK case wasn’t fair. They are both abusers. Own it.She’s no mastermind. Just an attention seeker.
Community notification jokes are old-school AV Club; that was the basis for my response. (I don’t wish to dump on Ms. Heard — there was already enough of that in her and Johhny Depp’s marital bed.)
Don’t feed the trolls. This one comes complete with talking points approved by the incoming Republican House of Representatives.
She was the abused and not the abuser. Hope this helps.
False. She admitted she hit him. Hope this helps.
“They didn’t do the thing I wanted to criticize them for, so let me just make something up to be mad at instead!”
Am I the only person whose dislike for Depp has very little to do with his *ahem* recent legal issues? The last thing I remember enjoying him in was Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. Feels like he’s spent most of the 21st century making big faces and/or wearing shitty wigs.
There is a reasonable chance you are not the only one.
Same, I mean the first pirates movie was okay I guess.
Same with Amber Heard. Yeah she’s an abuser too, but even before these revelations I was very meh on her.
You are not.
Same for me. Dude’s been coasting for a good long while, and while I don’t begrudge him that, I also don’t really have to pay attention to him if he’s not doing anything interesting.
Also “The Studio” means Harvey Weinstein right? I am surprised they didn’t fit that in somewhere.
Yeah, I guess it does.
Quentin Tarantino Disses Marvel by Talking about non-MCU Movies; “They’re Ass,” Subtext Indicates
Mid-90s Depp would’ve worked, but Roth was perfect for the role.
I can’t believe Dior still runs that idiotic commercial with him playing guitar in the desert with the wolves running around like a bunch of labrador retrievers. You had one job, wolves!! One job!!
Yah, perfume commercials tend to be pretty odd but that one is particularly stupid. I felt like during his trial I didn’t see it anymore and then after, I did. If only those wolves did their job indeed.
This is why I read all the comments. The best stuff is usually at the bottom.
Yeah. He looks like a bag lady who spent the night on a park bench.I don’t wanna smell that. I don’t wanna smell like that.
I think Roth and Amanda Plummer who played Honey Bunny had the right chemistry as a couple. I think Depp and Plummer just wouldn’t have worked as well.
Yeah, there is just NO WAY to make it believable that super handsome Depp (then, now he looks like Keith Richards,) would have been with Plummer (Who didn’t look too old for her part, then.)
I always took the Roth/Plummer scenes in PF to say, “Hey, we’re 30-ish and already haggard, been small-time for so long, let’s go big time” and then running into a brick wall at the wrong time due to Jules. Wouldn’t have worked with Depp.
I’m sure Depp would’ve tried with some extremely distracting and whimsical choice of facial hair, or a bad wig, or a dental appliance. Great thanks to Tarantino for holding the line there.
I mean Depp wasn’t as weird or hammy at that point (that would’ve been Gary Oldman who actually got better as he aged). But he wasn’t a good match for Plummer. And Tim Roth is so great- even when he’s sinister it’s in a likeable way? Depp’s creepy characters sometimes came off as *too* creepy… like his weird ass Willy Wonka
As opposed to the almost equally attractive Roth?
Depp would have been fine. Roth was fine too. A lot of guys could have done that part. Sam Jackson makes the scene.
Really the opening scene is all about Amanda Plummer screaming on top of that table, simply because it gave us the song “Scooby Snax” by Fun Lovin Criminals.
Jules calling Pumpkin “Ringo” is a really nice element of the movie’s final scene and final line that I assume wouldn’t have existed with Depp there so…great. It is kind of odd to frame this as some sort of moral victory for Tarantino given that it was decades before Depp’s abuse stuff and Tarantino was fully cozy with the Wein-meister at the time. Just a-sayin’.
Yeah this was happy coincidence and nothing more. I’d argue he was too young and pretty for the role. Coming into this he’d just made Edward Scissorhands, Benny and Joon, and Gilbert Grape. Ed Wood was same year as PF. I think he’d have worked okay but Roth hit just the right notes.Plus Tarantino had worked with him on Reservoir Dogs, so he had the experience of that filming to know what he was like to work with and what kind of talent he was.
Tarantino had worked with him on Reservoir Dogs, so he had the experience of that filming to know what he was like to work with and what kind of talent he was.I’m not completely positive, but I recall that Roth did a hell of a lot of work to get rid of his English accent for Reservoir Dogs – maybe he and Tarantino just wanted to continue the success of that.
It’s a pretty small part. I really don’t see what Depp would have added that we weren’t getting from Tim Roth.
Star power, but who needs to read the blog that states that.
Artistically, probably not much. I can see why the studio would have wanted an actor who was better known to American audiences for advertising purposes.
Tarantino said the executive that was pushing for Depp was just trying to cover his own ass. The executive admitted that he didn’t think having Depp in the movie would add to any of the revenue or quality of the movie. But if the movie flopped, the executive could say “I did everything I could. I got Johnny Depp in the movie.” because Depp had a bigger name.
Huh, almost the kind of thing you’d expect the article to contain.
At the time I don’t think Depp would have embodied the rat-like desperation necessary for the role. Maybe Depp post Jack Sparrow could have worked, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Nah. Though I could see him working in Eric Stoltz’s role…
Or The Gimp.It’d have been hilarious if it turned out he was a really famous actor.
It was totally Daniel Craig.
According to the DVD, Tarantino also considered a mediocre character actor named Quentin Tarantino for Eric Stoltz’s role. I’m glad he didn’t get it.
Those scenes probably would have been 2% better with Depp, but it really doesn’t matter. Roth did fine, it made Tarantino more comfortable, and probably cost less. Tim Roth definitely fits the semi-star casting vibe better. Part of the fun of Pulp Fiction was the offbeat assemblage of has-beens and almost-was’s.I’d personally prefer an alternate universe where every Tim Roth role became a Nicholas Cage role.
Not a huge Depp fan, but you ever see that 21 Jump Street where he goes undercover in prison and he’s crying while they play Can’t Find My Way Home in the background?
I wonder who else was almost cast in a movie 28 years ago…? Me maybe?
Are you on one of Quentin’s lists?
It is worth to say ‘studio pushes’ means ‘miramax’ means ‘Harvey Weinstein’ – so…