[quote] Why Hollywood Won't Cast Seann William Scott Anymore
Seriously, where did Seann William Scott go? He was everywhere for a few years following the success of American Pie and its sequels, but right around 2010, it seemed like he pretty much disappeared.
In March 2011, Scott entered rehab. According to TMZ, the actor voluntarily entered a treatment facility for unspecified health and personal issues, staying for the allotted 30 days before heading off to film American Pie 4: American Reunion. It's still unclear what he was struggling with, as he hasn't addressed anything publicly—and despite his party animal onscreen persona, Scott insisted to People in 2003, "I don't really party. If I did, it would probably just be trying a new bottle of wine." If he's trying to avoid vices, it's probably for the best that he avoids the Hollywood scene altogether.
A lot of celebrities don't actually work much, but are constantly on red carpets. Scott isn't one of them. The actor flies under the radar and is rarely seen at events or even papped going down the street, and in an era of constant celebrity blogging and a 24-hour news cycle, this otherwise respectable behavior may have actually hurt him. Scott's lack of visibility between projects may have made him forgettable for audiences, which could help explain his box office bombs.
At his peak, Scott was the goofy hot high schooler, sleazy party boy, or college jock, even if he was in his late 20s and 30s when he took most of those roles. Now that he's sporting some scruff and a hint of salt and pepper, he's not going to get the same sorts of parts. Perhaps if Scott had expanded his horizons during his heyday, like his Dude, Where's My Car? co-star Ashton Kutcher—who took serious turns in The Butterfly Effect and later landed the titular role of Steve Jobs in Jobs—he might not be in as much of a rut right now.
It seems like Scott got the memo, though. In 2010, he told MTV News that his role as Steve Stifler may have, er, stifled his career development, saying, "I had so much fun and loved the character, [but] I don't want to be known as that character forever." Unfortunately, as he's repeatedly learned the hard way, it can be hard to get Hollywood to take you seriously once you've been pigeonholed in a particular type of role.
The failure of 2003's Bulletproof Monk to make back back its budget, let alone any kind of profit, was a big career setback for Scott. On top of the obvious drawback to losing millions of your employer's dollars, he reportedly went all out, telling SF Gate that he "became obsessed with performing all his own stunts, immersing himself in a grueling martial arts training regimen for three months to prepare for the role."
That probably made it sting even more when reviewers like David Edelstein made it a point to diminish the fight choreography of the film as being disguised by "millisecond cuts" and "chopped into scores of little kicks and punches and leaps that don't cut together." Slant's Ed Gonzalez took a broader and even harsher approach, describing the entire film as "infinitely juvenile"—a slam that had to affect Scott, who also told SF Gate that his intention in pursuing the role was that it hopefully "gets the audience into that (more serious) aspect of what I can do."
Though the 2005 Dukes of Hazzard movie made some money, it was destroyed by critics, leaving it with a dismal 14 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. The site's users weren't kind either, rating it at 46 percent; one audience reviewer called it "A stupid, idiotic, ridiculous film that has no reason to exist apart from to cash in on a classic TV Series." The Houston Chronicle described it as "either one of the worst [films] of the decade, a trenchant political allegory or both," while Time Out London zeroed in on Scott's performance, describing it as "mildly perverted puppy-dog goofing." Ouch.
