An inverview excerpt:
sources:http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/368/368314p1.html

MADSEN: Exactly! Grand Theft Auto...


IGNFF: You did voiceovers for that, right?

MADSEN: I did. Unfortunately, when I did that voice, I had no idea what that video was about. Having four sons and having them have the video game, and now seeing the horror that it is – I don't know if I would have lent my voice to that particular thing if I had known some of the intent of that video.


IGNFF: It's quite a popular game...

MADSEN: Yes, it's quite popular, but it's very disturbing, also.


IGNFF: How does it feel to be involved with something like that, where you find out after the fact what it's all about?

MADSEN: It's kind of a drag, you know, because you get involved with someone and you loan your talent to something with the idea that it's something entertaining, and they don't really give you the full story of what the parameters of it are going to be. And when you find out later, it's too late – then you just have to live with it. You don't want to start making excuses for it, because no one wants to hear you whine about it – but I was a little disappointed. I didn't realize that it was going to be so violent.


IGNFF: I assume that it makes you more cautious in the future when accepting roles like that...

MADSEN: Absolutely, man. Absolutely. The whole doing voice for video games thing is in its infancy. I went in to it very naïve, and I would never do that again unless I knew exactly what they were going to do.


Now, what I don't get is how GTA is any different from a role where he slices an ear off a cop and is ready to burn him alive?
Why does he think the video game is too disturbing, but his role in RD is not?
What kind of mentality is this?

Because there's just no way for a young child to watch 'Reservoir Dogs'. It's impossible, right? And we all know that video games and cartoons are just for kids. If it's a cartoon, you should be able to rest easy knowing that your child is in good hands. Video games really should be the same way. He can't actually be expected to keep an eye on what his kids play can he?

The difference is that when he did Resevior Dogs, he knew exactly what was going on. He was able to ready the script and make an informed decision.

It seems that on GTA, he was told he was doing a voice over for a video game. They probaly didn't tell him that the player would be the 'bad guy'. So he was not happy that he went in thinking he was doing a certain thing, only to find out that it wasn't what he was lead to believe.

Big difference.

D

Yeah, he had no idea what kind of game it would be.

Don't you think that, if he really was woried about what his voice was used for, he would have asked how his voice would be used? I don't see how he could agree to do a game called Grand Theft Auto and then be shocked by the fact that his character isn't a "good guy"....

Its called taking the money and running...with the lines of dialogue he had in the game, don't you think he realized this wasn't Super Mario Bros? What a joke......ingrateful ahole

He should return the money. I love the guy as an actor but he did the most uninspired voice over work in the entire game.

"The Triads think they can mess with me, the Triads, with me?"

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

He didn't even finish. You have to listen to his mother for part of the game.

Everyone else Joey, Luigi, Salvatore, Maria were all fantastic.

I'm sure he knew -his- character was a bad guy. I'm saying it's possible that he didn't know the -player- is a bad guy too.

His lines are just a mob boss giving orders. That doesn't mean he knew the object of the game would be for the player to pretty much go on a killing spree.

D

If he was really that concerned, maybe he should have checked out the premise behind the first two GTA games. He is simply full of it.

It's the third in a series, it's not like it's a radical departure (theme wise) from the first two. If I were worried about attaching my name to something I think I would research what the other two games were about. I just have a hard time buying the fact that he's so concerned about this game when he will obviously do anything, even if he doesn't know exactly what he's doing, for money.

Look, he isn't concerned if he was playing a bad guy or a good guy. What he is "concerned" about that was violence. Given his lines, he knew there would be violence. There is no way he couldn't. So he bashes it to look like he really cares about the subject..maybe he should donate his check to a charity instead of bitching...

Did you guys read what he said? He already admitted that he made a mistake in taking the job and he isn't going to do it again.

The point is he WASN'T worried about it before this game, in the future he is going to look into stuff. He sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Did you read how he answered the question before that, insinuating that he was misled as to the nature of the game?

What talent? The man has no talent!

I think it's fine if he has a problem with the violence and if he disagrees with it.

I just think he comes off like a real hypocrite when he says this, but then he's fine with a role like Mr. Blonde.

Didnt you guys realize he was an ass when he made Free Willy? Newsflash - Asshead says something asinine!

"Daddy Daddy, why are you hurting that cop?"

"What, you don't like my movie? Huh? Speak up, tough guy!"

"Sorry Daddy, I'll just go to my room."

"You're damn right you will! And no Grand Theft Auto, either! That sh-t's too violent."

Michael Madsen is the man... I hope he does his trademark shuffle in the upcoming QT flick.

Clowns to the left of me! Jokers to the right!

Here I am stuck in the middle...of trying to look cool because of this game's violent content. Once again this is an example of an actor saying something in order to make himself look better in the eyes of the masses. Im more than certain he was told what this game involved. Unlike Dave Mirra who realized before it was too late that this game could very well ruin him. I dont think Madsen realizes the impact this game has had on the video game industry, positive or negetive. I do appreciate him looking out for younger gamers but much like Resvoir Dogs the game was, and is NOT intended for younger players. Blame the parents who let thier idiot children play such games. I feel sorry for any parent who buys a game that is rated M and continues to blame Rockstar for making such a game. Its not Rockstars fault the game is CLEARLY rated so take your whining elswhere and let your kid play pong. Because heaven forbid your child play SMB and want to go break bricks with his fist . There wasnt a day that went by at BBV that I got a kid who yelled at me because I wouldnt let him rent GTA 3. Then came the angry parent "whats with you? why cant my son rent here? is he not good enough?" The having to explain the content of the game the parent usually left pulling their child's ear out the door.

-'Nuff said.

Be thinkful!
Its all about the soundbites baby.

Transcripts from the Donahue episode:
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/784580.asp

Same old Donahue...

Okay, why are the children the idiots and not the parents? Curiosity leads to learning... I don't blame a child at all for indulging in M rated games if they have access to them. It's how they got access to such games that needs to be looked at and touched upon.

Ok perhaps I was being a bit harsh. Allow me to try again..I blame bratty children. The kids that came in on a regular basis to rent GTA 3 or other material not suited for them gave me the argument that "my parents dont care they even buy me prono" Im not kidding this has been said to me on occasion. It got to the point where I didnt even argue it anymore even in the face of my district manager who would make sure we were'nt breaking policy, by renting out mature rated games or R rated movies to underage children. But your right its idiotic parents not the kids, but on the other hand some of these kids could barely read let alone hurt anyone.

Did they really say "prono"?