Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

May 22, 2009

Fallout 3 was maybe the best game of 2008. Could an appearance by Bill Clinton have made it even more memorable?

In an interview with Edge Online, Lev Chapelsky, general manager of Blindlight, a Hollywood-based firm which connects actors, writers and musicians with game projects, mentions that he tried to recruit the former president for voice work in Bethesda's best-selling action/RPG:

Celebrity acquisition applies not just to celebrity actors but to sports figures, politicians – we’ve made offers to Bill Clinton for videogames and gotten great responses with attorneys who have said, ‘The former president will not participate in one of your videogame products, thank you very much’...

What project did you ask Bill Clinton for?

 

I think that might have been to play the president in Fallout 3. Wouldn’t that have been brilliant? You get to that point in game and you hear that voice in the ether coming from off-camera and you’re like, ‘I know that guy!’

Via: Fidgit

Posted in

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

It would have been interesting but I'd hate to have lost malcolm mcdowell

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

Man, if they'd managed that I'd have bought Fallout 3 immediately, just for the awesome.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

I doubt Mr Clinton was even apoproached with it, the attorneys likely made that decision themselves.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

Al Gore would have done it

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

Of course he would, he's a massive attention whore/liar. 

Of course, his version would've been terrible compared to what the computer ACTUALLY sounded like and said, because Al Gore would've probably gone on a rant about creating the internet and winning a nobel prize (so Gore and Arafat have something else in common!), instead of reading the actual script.

Bill Clinton's voice, coming from a computer, would've sounded strange to me, personally.  But it would've helped to push me towards talking that big-ass computer into frying itself.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

Al Gore lent his voice to Futurama. He's okay in my book.

Having Bill Clinton in Fallout certainly would have been pretty cool.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

Al Gore doll: "You are hearing me talk."

I know that was the Simpsons, and not Futurama.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

He's also a liar and a hypocrite.  So if you're cool with that, whatever.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

So he's different from any other politician HOW, exactly?

Oh, that's right, he's a liberal. Get the rope, Billy-Bob!

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

That and he's manipulating the scientific community and the academic communities so he can make himself rich.  Oh, and he's a smug motherfucker, don't forget that.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

He's also ridden the Moon Worm. I'm okay with that too.

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

Or so he says...

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

But Presdint Edan is a dictator...Chaney would have been a better choice...... :P

 


I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay's outside our bedrooms..


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: Bill Clinton Turned Down Voice-over Role in Fallout 3

If that happened i would protect my face if i wetn hunting with a Chaney voiced computer.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Login or register to post shouts