Imagine being offered a role in one of the most iconic films of the 1970s, only to turn it down for a movie that would later be dubbed a career misstep. That’s exactly what Burt Reynolds did when he passed on MASH* to star in the now-forgotten adventure film Skullduggery. But why would a rising star make such a bold choice? And this is the part most people miss: Skullduggery wasn’t just a random pick—it was based on a critically acclaimed French novel, Les Animaux dénaturés, and had the potential to be groundbreaking. Yet, it ended up being a box office flop and a critical disaster. So, what went wrong? And did Reynolds ever regret letting the role of Trapper John slip through his fingers?
By the late 1960s, Burt Reynolds was on the cusp of superstardom. His 50-episode stint on CBS’s Gunsmoke had solidified his place in Hollywood, and he was actively searching for the role that would catapult him to the A-list. When the opportunity to play Trapper John McIntyre in Robert Altman’s MASH* came knocking, it seemed like the perfect ticket. The film went on to become the third highest-grossing movie of 1970, but Reynolds wasn’t part of it. Instead, he chose Skullduggery, a film that promised adventure, intrigue, and a chance to explore a unique story—but delivered none of the expected glory.
Skullduggery follows Reynolds’ character as he hunts for phosphorus deposits in New Guinea alongside his sidekick (Roger C. Carmel). When they join an expedition led by an archaeologist (Susan Clark), they stumble upon a tribe called the Tropis, who are believed to be the missing link between apes and humans. But here’s where it gets controversial: the film’s financier wants to breed the Tropis to enslave them, turning what could have been a thought-provoking exploration of humanity into a bizarre courtroom drama. The movie was panned by critics and lost Universal Pictures a fortune. So, what did Reynolds see in this project? And more importantly, did he ever look back and wish he’d taken the MASH* role instead?
In a 1976 interview with Gene Siskel, Reynolds admitted he liked the script but quickly realized the production was headed for disaster. He described the film as ‘badly directed’ and ‘kind of sloughed off,’ though he praised Susan Clark’s performance. He also pointed out the absurdity of certain scenes, like Pat Suzuki dressed as a small ape, which he felt doomed the film from the start. By the time Skullduggery was released, Reynolds knew he needed to be more selective. He bounced back with roles in Fuzz and Deliverance, the latter of which became one of his most iconic performances and solidified his status as Hollywood’s go-to leading man throughout the 1970s.
But let’s pause for a moment: Was Skullduggery really as bad as history remembers it? Or was it ahead of its time? The film’s themes of exploitation, humanity, and ethical boundaries are undeniably relevant today. Perhaps Reynolds saw something in it that others missed—a chance to challenge audiences or push boundaries. Or maybe it was just a risky bet that didn’t pay off. What do you think? Was Reynolds right to take a chance on Skullduggery, or should he have played it safe with MASH*? Let’s debate in the comments!
