Trend in movies: CAsting Woes
07-14-04, 02:40 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LA baby
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trend in movies: CAsting Woes
Recently ive been noticing that big time actors are being cast alongside less prestigious actors. Ex: Harrison Ford and Josh Harnett (Hollywood Homicide), JAck Nicholson and Adam Sandler (Anger Management), Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (Bad Company), and most recently TomCruise and Jamie Foxx???
I just want to know what the movie makers are thinking when they put together these ensembles.
Any thoughts
I just want to know what the movie makers are thinking when they put together these ensembles.
Any thoughts
07-14-04, 04:16 PM
#7
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't think I'd compare Adam Sandler to the rest. Out of all those people, second to Tom Cruise, he's by far the biggest box office draw of the whole bunch.
And what's the idea? Well, depends on the movie. Obviously one it keeps costs down. Two, it can be good to bring that sort of difference to the screen. Jack and Adam was all about two different types of people clashing, which made perfect sense. And why Jamie Foxx? Cause Michael Mann said so.
Obviously these movies aren't going to have two 20 million dollar leads in the same movie. That's too expensive. Actually, can we really think of many cases where this doesn't happen? I mean, you get a big star, and fill in around him with lesser known talent. And even though some of these actors you might call prestiguous, remember...Adam Sandler is a much more expensive actor than Anthony Hopkins.
And what's the idea? Well, depends on the movie. Obviously one it keeps costs down. Two, it can be good to bring that sort of difference to the screen. Jack and Adam was all about two different types of people clashing, which made perfect sense. And why Jamie Foxx? Cause Michael Mann said so.
Obviously these movies aren't going to have two 20 million dollar leads in the same movie. That's too expensive. Actually, can we really think of many cases where this doesn't happen? I mean, you get a big star, and fill in around him with lesser known talent. And even though some of these actors you might call prestiguous, remember...Adam Sandler is a much more expensive actor than Anthony Hopkins.
07-15-04, 01:21 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LA baby
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Groucho
If by "trend" you mean "last 100 years," then I agree with you.
If by "trend" you mean "last 100 years," then I agree with you.
07-15-04, 01:21 PM
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LA baby
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RyoHazuki
Its to get the whole family in the theater. The parents enjoy Hopkins' work, the kiddies think Chris Rock is da bomb.
Its to get the whole family in the theater. The parents enjoy Hopkins' work, the kiddies think Chris Rock is da bomb.
07-15-04, 08:39 PM
#10
Adam Sandler got higher billing than Jack Nicholoson so bad example. As for the rest, well I think it could work if its done well. It was supposed to be Tom Cruise and Adam Sandler in Collateral. And no matter how good that movie turns out to be I'll still think about how much better it could of been.
