Quote:
Originally posted by C_Zman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wacov:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C_Zman:
It's a stinker move because for the Bond films to succeed they need to connect to the masses audience, including Americans which are a huge chunk of the incoming ticket prices for films. When you add in an unknown (I'm assuming he'd be unknown to a lot of moviegoers here, that's why I asked if anyone knows what movies this guy's been in to judge that) to a blockbuster like the Bond films, you could be risking a lot on a big franchise like that. For examples, see Timothy Dalton and the guy that did the "On her Majesty's..." Bond movies. They didn't last long solely for that reason. Just because it's Bond doesn't mean you can stick a totally unknown in the lead. If Christian Bale wasn't tied to Batman forever or Hugh Jackman to the X-men films, I'd see them being great choices. |
thats a load of rubbish. "they have to connect with the mass audience, including americans? "
dont you mean mainly americans? theyre connecting with a good name in britain (origin and heritage of Bond) who is a good actor. why do you have to have an american known person already? thats ridiculous. how do you start out then? slowly? for the american mind to adjust to a familiar face? here i was thinking that a good plot and good acting were main ingredients. the name bond is the main thing that sells. there's a million reasons why the 80's ones didnt do as well.
what matters is if he is good for the role or not. maybe you should start watching films that arent hollywood blockbusters, complete rubbish. </font>[/QUOTE]As I said before, explain the Dalton films and "On her Majesty's..." then. You don't mess w/a blockbuster series by sticking someone half the audience doesn't have a clue about in. The risk of putting Brandon Routh in the upcoming Superman flick is comparable but people will flock to it just because Supes hasn't been around for a while and has a lot larger audience than Bond. Bond audiences are a bit more limited (I dare say women don't flock to Bond flicks compared to a Superman film) in their scope. Bond films are NOT known for the Oscar scripts but a formula. The bottom line is do they make money and, considering Hollywood's box #'s have been dropping annually and blockbusters have been risky in that climate alone lately, taking a risk on an actor that half the audience doesn't really know could either pay off big or tank the series. I'm just saying it's risky. Incidentally, I do watch movies other than blockbusters but I also know how Hollywood makes the bulk of their dough, and it's not on Indie movies. </font>[/QUOTE]Complete tosh. Fact is, he's a good actor. Hiring an Aussie or anyone else just cos the thick kids know them is ridiculous. Maybe this is an angle to introduce new stars, broaden horizons etc. I think hiring someone that is well known and known to be good (albeit not in americaland) is better than getting some run of the mill name that some will flock to, and some avoid, as they might not like them.
If i was an actor, id be damn thankful youre not in charge of hiring.
Anyway, as I said, watch Layer Cake.