Casting — Page 3

Exactly :) If there were not thousands of tweets every day of why people should not see the film because the Gladiator can't sing and the scenes did not work.

So despite of that, the film is still doing fairly well,
even with the huge quality drop in certain scenes.

I think it's safe to say that it would only be better if that level of quality was sustained a bit more throughout the film.
Better for the audience experience/engagement and better for the mouth to mouth publicity. Don't you agree?

Funny, I've not seen a single tweet that suggests that people shouldn't see it because of Crowe. Have I seen some that say he's the weak link -- definitely. But none that tried to convince anyone to stay away because of him.

And really, THOUSANDS every day? Don't be silly.

---

I think you are talking about Ariel. Now you mention that, indeed, that is a "friendship" casting too.

I wast talking about Mary Costa as Aurora/Sleeping Beauty.

Of course, Dave. My bad. It won't surprise you that my granddaughter is often appalled at my ability to confuse Disney princesses.

As for "friendship" casting, it is the norm, not the exception. And why not? Auditions are not a terribly reliable indicator of what you will get in the final performance.

So if you've worked with someone and you know the colors of her voice and that she is hard-working and reliable, why wouldn't you cast her over somebody who did a cold reading for 3 or 4 minutes? Even a full screen test (expensive) gives one a limited view.

She may have had an in with Ashman, but I don't know anyone who thinks Jodi Benson was a bad choice for Ariel. (Least of all my granddaughter!)

Johnny, why generalize instead of thinking about the subject?

Why do you keep saying 95% of the audience didn't like Crowe's performance? Where does that figure come from? Is it, possibly, one that you've made up? Is he the strongest singer? No. Did I enjoy his performance? Absolutely, and I'm not a fan of his

Like others here, you really don't understand how casting works. Good luck on your endeavors to change the business, but if you approach people with the same techniques you've used to try to sway opinion here, I don't see success in your future.

To argue that point, we'd have to agree with your hypothesis that people are cast out of fear, narrow-mindedness, and short-sightedness, wouldn't we?

"For example, going for a name instead of an unknown is based on the fear that an unknown would not bring in enough money.

Or do you have other ideas about this? "

I don't agree with your hypothesis. That's not fear, that's practicality. It's a business. You want to go with unknowns, stick to indies and off Broadway.

"And so, IF they decide to go for a name, they should at least see 10 potential Javers on audition. Choosing to not want to know any better is short-sighted. Because it's not like this actor is perfect for the material.

Or do you have other ideas about this?"

I don't agree with your hypothesis. There's nothing short-sighted about knowing what you want and sticking to it. Again, it's a business. Your naivety (that you keep accusing others of) would be charming and laudable if you weren't so obnoxious about it - for someone who accuses others of generalizing, you do plenty of it. Seriously, "thousands of tweets"? "95% of the audience"?

"You say tomato, I say tomato."

Isn't that the same thing?

"If you exclude other people without seing them, blocking yourself for new ideas and surprises, your views get very narrow. That's naive. "

Actually, in the terms of this discussion, it's cynicism - the very opposite of naive.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".