Skip to comments.Actor Jim Caviezel Turns Down $75 Million Dollar Payday (for 'Passion' related promotions)
Posted on 05/27/2004 9:12:02 AM PDT by sathersEdited on 05/27/2004 9:19:02 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Movie star Jim Caviezel has turned down the chance to become a multimillioniare by starring in a series of TV commericals-because he wants to stay true to his strict Catholic beliefs.
The actor has become a hot property since starring as Jesus in Mel Gibson's epic 'The Passion of the Christ,' but the 35 year old has turned down a series of deals--worth an estimated 75 million.
He says, 'I think if I had given way on just one scheme, I would have been tempted to do more. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to make that kind of money quickly. That sum would have secured your future, but I would never have been able to forgive myself.'
Among the deals Caviezel turned down was one for a T-shirt company's new 'Heavenly' line of apparel.
He adds, 'I could see the humor in it, but I think I would have upset a lot of people who get something special from the film.
(Excerpt) Read more at us.imdb.com ...
Kudos to him. He's an inspiration. He's another good article on him ...
He refused to lie naked for a scene with J-Lo in 'Angel Eyes' because of his beliefs as well.
For those liberals who don't recognize it, this is called "character".
Jim is a guy who talks the talk and walks the walk, no doubt.
Filthy lucre ping. ;O)
That's the kind of character we are missing in our politicians!
My utmost respect for that man!!!
WHAT A MIRACULOUS EXAMPLE FOR
THE HOLLYWEIRDS TO LIVE UP TO!
Catholic virtue in action PING!
He don't wanna be a celebrity known for being known, spouting pieces of worldy wisdom an any subject to a hungry public? What is wrong with the boy?
Jim Caviezel for President - 2008
Funny, I would have called it "Christian virtues in action..."
Oh, the libs recognize it all right, just as they recognize it in President Bush, Richard Cheney, and all the other people that Bore called on to resign yesterday.
They recognize it, and hate them for it. Why else would libs attempt to reduce the perception of what does not exist?
Same thing to us.
Why else would libs attempt to reduce the perception of what THEY THINK does not exist?
I'm sure I'll be excoriated for this view, but I think Caviezel should have taken the money and donated it to causes that he believes in. Think of the good that he could do with 70+ million dollars. He could end hunger for an entire city's worth of people. I remember thinking this when the Calvin & Hobbes creator turned down what would have been over $100 million for licensing his creations. Think of the good that one could do for that money. I'm not saying they were wrong for making the decision that they made... but if I were in the position where I had the opportunity to make many millions of dollars off of a creation I made, my moral dilemma would be what to do with the money, not whether or not to take it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.