Burt Reynolds Passed Up a Legendary MAS*H Role for a Largely Forgotten Adventure Film – And Here's Why It Matters
Universal Pictures
By the late 1960s, Burt Reynolds was steadily climbing the Hollywood ladder. His visibility skyrocketed thanks to his 50-episode stint on CBS' Western series "Gunsmoke," which he joined in its eighth season when star Dennis Weaver hinted at leaving the show. Once Reynolds exited, he divided his time between television and feature films, hunting for that one defining role that could cement his status as a bona fide movie star. That breakthrough moment seemed to arrive at the dawn of the 1970s when he was offered the role of charming chest surgeon Trapper John McIntyre in Robert Altman's iconic Korean War comedy "MAS*H."
But here’s where it gets controversial: Reynolds didn’t take it. Instead, he opted to headline an unconventional adventure movie called "Skullduggery." And while "MAS*H" would go on to become the third highest-grossing film of 1970—trailing only "Love Story" and "Airport"—Reynolds’ choice meant he missed out on what could have been a defining Hollywood moment.
For fans of Burt Reynolds, "Skullduggery" is one of those early films that tends to get skipped, often dismissed as poorly executed rather than entertainingly campy. In it, Reynolds portrays a man searching for phosphorus deposits in New Guinea, accompanied by his quirky sidekick, played by Roger C. Carmel. Their expedition, led by an archaeologist portrayed by Susan Clark, uncovers a remarkable discovery: a tribe that could be the missing evolutionary link between apes and humans, called the Tropis. But things take a dark turn when the expedition’s backer in the United States schemes to exploit the Tropis by attempting to breed them into slavery. Eventually, the story transforms into a courtroom drama as the team fights to have the Tropis legally recognized as human beings.
Critics largely trashed "Skullduggery," and Universal Pictures suffered a significant financial loss. So what was Reynolds thinking when he chose this over the career-defining "MAS*H"? And did he ever regret giving the role of Trapper John to Elliot Gould?
"Skullduggery" Became a Wake-Up Call for Reynolds' Career
Universal Pictures
The film was adapted from the acclaimed French novel "Les Animaux dénaturés" (translated in English as either "You Shall Know Them, Borderline" or "The Murder of the Missing Link"). Initially, Otto Preminger flirted with the idea of directing, but after stepping away, the rights went to producer Saul David, best known for genre hits like "Our Man Flint," "In Like Flint," and "Fantastic Voyage." The production stumbled almost immediately when David fired Mercury Theatre veteran Richard Wilson after just one day of shooting. Gordon Douglas took over directing, but Reynolds wasn’t impressed with the new leadership.
In a 1976 interview with Gene Siskel, Reynolds admitted that he liked the script, but he sensed early on that the film was headed for trouble. As he recounted,
"Badly directed, kind of sloughed off. Susan Clark was good; she's a good actress. But nobody knew how to sell the picture. Any time you have Pat Suzuki dressed as a small ape, I think you're in trouble."
Upon the movie's release, Reynolds realized he needed to be more selective with his roles. Speaking to the Chicago Tribune in 1970, he reflected on his string of "wonderful, forgettable pictures," joking that he suddenly felt "as hot as Leo Gorcey"—possibly referencing the actor's career decline or a recent death. This newfound clarity led Reynolds to choose projects more carefully. He starred in the popular crime film "Fuzz" and accepted a role originally intended for Marlon Brando in "Deliverance," portraying an outdoorsman hunted by hostile hill people. These choices propelled him to the top of Hollywood's A-list throughout the 1970s, solidifying his reputation as one of the era's most bankable stars.
So, was passing on "MAS*H" a misstep, or did it ultimately help Reynolds define his career on his own terms? That’s a debate that still sparks conversation among movie buffs today. What do you think—was it a bold, career-defining gamble or a rare misjudgment in an otherwise stellar trajectory?
