Nigel Campbell's picture

Charlie Hunnam's Abrupt 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' Exit Explained!

For those of you that have been giving the side-eye to Charlie Hunnam's excuse for exiting Fifty Shade Of Grey, it looks like you were right. Those alleged "scheduling conflicts" with Sons Of Anarchy not allowing him adequate time to prepare never sat well with us either.

Well those tireless investigators over at The Hollywood Reporter have gotten to the bottom of what really went down and what led to Charlie's decision to leave the film on a few short weeks before shooting was scheduled to begin.

Here's an excerpt from the THR piece:

The last thing Universal wants is another actor to emerge as its Fifty Shades protagonist only to waffle. The studio is reeling over Hunnam's exit less than three weeks before the start of production. Sources say his discomfort with the hoopla around the project had been mounting for at least four weeks before he bailed, which officially was blamed on his Sons schedule not allowing him time to prepare (the FX series wraps production Oct. 21). After signing Sept. 2, Hunnam faced a public frenzy on social media sites, where fans of the book congregated to fawn over and complain about his casting. Universal was forced to hire bodyguards for the actor at a recent Sons premiere, and two appearances to promote the show were canceled -- one at Goulet Motosports in Hawkesbury, Ontario, on Sept. 14, and one at Rocky's Harley-Davidson in London, Ontario, on Oct. 13.

In addition, Hunnam, who also is a writer (he penned the gothic horror screenplay Vlad for Brad Pitt's Plan B and Summit Entertainment), is said to have submitted his own very detailed script notes on Kelly Marcel's adaptation of the runaway best-seller. The notes were well received, according to sources, but that only led to Hunnam seeking further script approval, which was denied. "That's Charlie, that's who he is. He's particular," says one source.

According to another source, Hunnam, who was to be paid about $125,000 for the film, began butting heads with the creative team, including Taylor-Johnson. The conflict reached a fever pitch in early October, though everyone involved thought the issues had been resolved. But the discord spiked again Oct. 11. Hunnam's team at CAA and Brillstein Entertainment Partners strongly advised him to stay on the project for fear that his exit would embarrass Langley -- new to the chairman job -- and burn a bridge with one of the major studios. That same day, Universal hired writer Patrick Marber -- no stranger to taboo sex themes with his Oscar-nominated screenplay Notes on a Scandal -- to do a polish and bolster the characters. But by then, Hunnam, whose heart it seems never was in the project, had decided to decamp. The next morning, the studio announced his departure, and James tweeted, "I wish Charlie all the best." Universal and CAA declined comment.

What do you think of Charlie's reasons for leaving, Instincters? Did he make the best decision? Will the right actor be signed on to play Christian Grey in time?

 

Image Source

Comments

Personally, I think that Charlie's public rationale for leaving is a cover up. During one interview after the announcement of his being cast as CG, an interviewer asked him what his girlfriend thought about, in his taking the part, and wasn't she jealous of projected sex scenes? Charlie replied that he and Morgana had a wonderful relationship, and just like so many other  things in this world, M would just have to learn 'to share him",,,,,,,, I suggest that M's reception of this comment was the impetus for Charlie reneging on the contract.

$125k for a movie that will make $500 million?  I'd bail too. Not sure why he'd even agree to that chump change

I believe they're never going to get a credible actor to take on this controversial role without replacing the director. The key to the success if this film adaptation is a credible director, one that would make the actor feel more confident about taking on a very controversial role because they know they're in good solid hands. No disrespect to Taylor-Johnson, she may be good but the problem is that nobody knows that yet. She hardly has anything to show. If you google her, it shows that she only did 1 indie film about the Beatles. 1 damn film! In Wikipedia, she doesn't even have a Filmography cause she only has 1 film under her belt! 1 damn film! And she's supposed to direct the most controversial film? How could an actor with high hopes for his career trust that?! 

Universal better consider replacing Taylor-Johnson and when they do, high-caliber actors will start getting in line to take on the role of Christian Grey, and the rest of the characters too! 

Personaly, I think this man is brilliant, and I have never nor will I ever read 50 shades, but I would have seen the movie to support charlie. I think he has done the right thing not filming this due to that is not him he is tough, rough, sexy and just a bad ass, and for him to do a porn might be way to much. I mean yes I'm sure many women would love this role on him but we still have to respect him as a person, and if we are true fans u would respect what he wants. I feel bad that over one role he's being picked at he can't win either way. But I will respect him no matter what he chooses to do.... thanks charlie for being you

I am very sad and disappointed. Him being in it was my only interest in the books and movies.

I'm pretty sure Charlie Hunnam is already a household name.  With the hit show Sons of Anarchy and the movie Pacific Rim.

Hated him cast anyway. Was going to boycott film.

Oh, Lynn.  I'm sure most lesbians feel that same way you do about Charlie Hunnam... and BTW we wouldn't have noticed you boycotting, so....  

paid $125k?  as if

that has to be very very wrong

For a role that can make you a household name? most actors would waive their acting fee. 

Add new comment