Casting big names in musical films- Page 3

[CHOOKA2]

Posted: 12/31/12 at 7:34pm

Am I the only person who goes to a movie--any type-- only for the content/material/story??Who is in the film comes waaaaay down my list of reasons for seeing a film--most of the time I have never heard of most of the actors except for the ones that are always in the tabloids[?] because they have a new baby or dog.
PS--I went to Les Mis to see the film--not because of who was in it.

Updated On: 12/31/12 at 07:34 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/31/12 at 7:42pm

I'm sure you're not the only one, Chooka, but I must admit that I have a short-list of actors I trust to choose quality projects. Meryl Streep movies aren't always classics, but it's rare that she makes something is a complete waste of my time.

If I had been raised by wolves and had never heard of LES MISERABLES, the combination of Jackman, Crowe and Hathaway would have been enough to draw me to the theater.

***

BTW, if Europe is now watching LAW AND ORDER SVU, then on behalf of the United States, I apologize.

Updated On: 12/31/12 at 07:42 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/31/12 at 10:09pm

SOME actors will make a film higher on my list, but I have never gone to a movie JUST because any individual actor appeared in it. However, there are many movie goers that would ONLY go to certain movies BECAUSE of who is in it.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:00pm

^^^ That is correct dramamama, just like folks who go see theater for a certain star that is in the production.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:13pm

What gets me is that they had big names in Jackman and Hathaway so was Crowe really necessary?

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:17pm

This is a business. Studios invest millions in these films and need to see a return. More often than not, this means you need big name actors. Quality alone, does not equal money in the bank; if it did, more independent films would be raking in the bucks. You look at films as art because you have that luxury, producers are not so lucky. They need to see films as products to sell. While big names don't guarantee a hit, they do help significantly. This is a sad reality, and you can either accept it, or don't see these movies.

Clearly, the box office returns for Les Mis are currently indicating that the studio made the right choices here, whether you agree with those choices or not.

[ComingUpRoses2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:19pm

I understand a few stars in the mix to help box office, but in the case of something like, say, Nine, it hurt the film (so did the crappy script and cuts to the score.) Rob Marshall was too concerned with booking big stars rather than making the musical numbers work.

Chicago was a case of everyone being well cast, so the fact that they were "stars" didn't bother me one bit. Hairspray, too, although Travolta wasn't quite ideal.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:25pm

jimmycurry01 - No problem with getting big names but they should be able to handle their role vocally especially the role of Javert. The box office is a reflection of generally pretty positive reviews of the movie and glowing reviews regarding Hathaway's performance. Most people I know that were interested in seeing movie could have cared less who was in the film, they just loved the story and music. I guess my point is that Jackman and Hathaway are stars but they can sing, Crowe can't IMO.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:45pm

Kad: "You need money to make the quality".

Not really true for this subject. I bet Taylor Swift would have asked more money for the role of Eponine than Samantha Barks.
Money has actually not much to do with quality.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:53pm

Cameron Mackintosh on why he did'nt cast Taylor Swift in the role of "Eponine,because of her large fan base that could generate lots of money for the film...his response was "Les Miserables is the star, we just didn't need that".

I wish he meant that but then he went for Russel Crowe and Amanda Seyfried.

About the "it's easy to create stars" thing;
If someone is magnificent in a role, then that is a star performance. Even if that person never works again, because truthful casting directors just never foung another perfect role for that person, he/she is still a star in that role.
"Star" is very time-limited, people change, generations change, only a certain quality in a certain role will stand the test of time. Being a star in a certain role does NOT mean being a star in another role, so the "star" subject should stay out of the casting room at all times!

It's all about finding the right person, at the right time, for the right role.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:53pm

CHOOKA2 I agree with you 100%.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 3:56pm

Chooka2:

"Am I the only person who goes to a movie--any type-- only for the content/material/story??Who is in the film comes waaaaay down my list of reasons for seeing a film"

Yeah, me too.

Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots who don't.

Updated On: 1/1/13 at 03:56 PM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:02pm

Those of us who see movies for content and story are indeed the minority. The Transformers franchise alone should answer that question.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:09pm

Producers and studios don't make movies to lose money just so they can get the perfect person for a part.

I think a lot of this passion comes from youth, and primarily from an academic/school environment where you are taught if you score the highest score and jump the highest jump and perform the best on your "test" you will be rewarded.

The real world doesn't work that way. The person who is "best" for a job doesn't always get it. It happens all the time. Many other things factor into it. And that's a big (and often harsh) wake-up call to younger people once they leave the academic world and join the rest of society.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:10pm

Sorry, your opinion doesn't make YOU right or others wrong. What's wrong with someone liking an actor's work enough to see them any movie that sounds slightly appealing? It's just a different way at looking at it.

No one's REASONS for seeing one film over another is any better than another's. Different strokes.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:13pm

To me, the test of a real "movie star" isn't an actor who plays a big role in a blockbuster franchise. We can all argue that the franchise itself is the "star," and they just came along for the ride and played their part to help get it there.

(Check out the "movie star" careers of Carrie Fisher and Mark Hammil, vs. a movie star like Harrison Ford to see the difference in how things worked out.)

The real test is if that "star" can appear in a crap film that doesn't have instant name recognition on its own, and the star can still bring people in to see it on his or her name alone.

Meryl Streep has done it many times, so has Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, Sandra Bullock, etc. Male stars like Bruce Willis, Denzel Washington, Arnold Schartzenegger, George Clooney, etc., can do it, too.

I'm not saying they haven't had flops, but they can take an obscure property and generate box office revenue on their name alone, outside of a recognizable franchise. That's why they get paid what they do.

There are actors right now who have "starred" in blockbusters that I wouldn't call movie stars just yet. But they're on their way. They need more movies under their belts that don't have a Marvel Comics hero or a "star character" attached to it already. Time will tell.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:33pm

"Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots who don't."

oh dear. You do know who sounds like the idiot here, don't you?

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:38pm

Not really. Going to a film for the material/story is not so weird my friend.

Going to a film for a "name" and not care at all if the person fits the part is quite idiotic to me.

But feel free to disagree.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:38pm

I definitely will go to a film on occasion, just because I like a specific actor in it. Makes all the sense in the world. I like someone's work, I want to see it.

And in case you don't get this, Dave, it's like I might go to an art gallery to see an exhibit by an artist whose work I appreciate.

Or maybe you've listened to a specific piece of music because you like that artist. If you ever did, you must have slipped into idiot mode that day.

SHEESH

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:41pm

Great analogy, Jane.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:45pm

Best12bars:

"Producers and studios don't make movies to lose money just so they can get the perfect person for a part.

I think a lot of this passion comes from youth, and primarily from an academic/school environment where you are taught if you score the highest score and jump the highest jump and perform the best on your "test" you will be rewarded."

I think we all agree that Samantha Barks is a better person for the role than Taylor Swift. Did they lose money on that choice?

If so, how?

I think it's naive to think in short terms and I think a film will only stand the test of time with right choices like this.

I think this whole "desperately casting stars because we are insecure that the film will be successful without it" thing is quite naive, and the "reward issue" you describe is the problem the producers have nowadays.



Updated On: 1/1/13 at 04:45 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:50pm

Jane, this is about casting a ROLE.

Being a fan of one person and liking everything he does has nothing to do with casting and being suitable for a part. I'm glad you like that person, but if it doesn't work in the role, it doesn't work in the role.

You may care more for the person than the story, most people don't. Or do. Depends on how you see it.

As much as I like a performer, it is possible that I don't like that performer in a certain role at all. Unless you can't see past that.





Updated On: 1/1/13 at 04:50 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:54pm

But YOUR own argument earlier claims that they are losing money BECAUSE of Crowe.

How does one TRULY know that a person is going to be right in the role until they actually perform? AGAIN: on paper, it seemed as if Crowe COULD have been a wonderful Javert. (And, btw, there are many people that didn't dislike his performance at all.)

All things artistic are subjective. And how do you know an actor (known or unknown) will be good or not in a role until you see it?

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:56pm

Dave, I give up. You just don't get it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 4:58pm

I think we all agree that Samantha Barks is a better person for the role than Taylor Swift. Did they lose money on that choice?

How would anyone ever know? We'll never get to see this movie with Taylor Swift and compare box office receipts, so your question is unanswerable and you've made no point.


Good luck in the real world, Dave19. You're setting yourself up for major disappointments every step of the way, whenever the "best person" doesn't get a just reward.

But hey, chase those windmills if you want to! You're certainly entitled to do it.