There could be various reasons. Maybe he had scheduling conflicts with other projects at that time. It's also possible that he didn't resonate with the character or the overall tone of the movie as much as he needed to in order to take on the role.
There could be various reasons. Maybe he had scheduling conflicts with other projects at that time. Or perhaps the role didn't quite appeal to him in terms of how he envisioned his career path at that moment.
Consequences for Fishburne were a bit of a mixed bag. He didn't get the exposure that came with being in Pulp Fiction which was a very influential movie. But at the same time, his career still thrived in different areas. For the movie, it went on to be a huge success without him. Samuel L. Jackson's performance became one of the most memorable in cinema history. And the movie's success also launched the careers of other actors involved. So overall, while Fishburne's decision had an impact on his own career trajectory, it didn't really change the fate of Pulp Fiction.
The most obvious consequence for the movie was that they had to recast the role. This could have potentially changed the dynamic of the movie a little bit, but as we know, it was still a massive hit. For Laurence Fishburne, it was a decision that had long - term implications for his career in a sense. He may not be as closely associated with the Tarantino - esque style of filmmaking as he could have been. On the other hand, he continued to do other great work in different types of movies, so it's not like his career was negatively impacted in a huge way. It was just one of those decisions that changed the trajectory in a small way for both him and the movie.