Musings on casting, actors and awards...was: The Importance of Being Flint

[tiggereh1987]

Greetings all!

Haven't posted here yet, but saw Susan's response to Kyle and I had 
to comment myself.

Susan said:
I would've liked to see Wood, but the decision has been made and 
there's not a huge amount of point bitching  about it now. (Like 
that's stopped us before... ;) )

I say:
This is true.  Besides, the public rarely hears the full story about 
the negotiations between actors and producers.  Remember, Zoë 
Wannamaker wasn't in CoS because she wanted more screen time.  I
am sure that over the course of putting all seven books onto the big 
screen, we will see other changes/exclusions of characters.  

Susan said:
Pee-Wee's Playhouse <snip>I don't know why it was picketed 
(something to do with Reuben's charges about certain things being 
found on his PC? I don't know when it was, either, so you'll have to 
help me out), but I'd warrant that most of the parents got behind it 
and made a big stink over whatever disturbed them so. 

I say:
It was the fact that Paul Rubens (PeeWee) was caught inside 
an `adult' theatre doing what some people do in those types of 
theatres.  In Canada, there were a couple of children's
entertainers that were accused of molestation and they were 
boycotted until they were cleared (I believe it was Raffi and 
another one, I didn't have children then)

Susan said:
But you know full well, Kyle that everyone in this fandom will go to 
see PoA when it comes out, yourself included. The HP fandom 
worldwide is just too big - and a lot of them are kids, who don't 
care about the subtle subplots, they just want to see Harry. Doing 
anything. They'd watch Harry watching paint dry, for crying out 
loud :) The only thing WB would listen to is a boycott, because then 
they'd have to watch their little brown cash cow keel over. And the 
chances of enough people boycotting to make any sort of impact are 
tiny. The first movie is the second biggest grossing film of all 
time - literally millions of us would have to boycott to get them to 
change their minds, and it still wouldn't work until PoA comes out, 
because people can *say* they'll boycott all they want, but unless 
they actually do it, GoF will go ahead without fan input too. (Which 
I don't think would be SUCH a bad thing - PS and CoS sucked compared 
to the books, but they weren't unwatchable)

I say:
We have to remember that Warner Brothers paid A LOT of money for the 
Harry Potter franchise.  I have been in the entertainment business 
for the past fifteen years, and the only studio that seems to wield 
more power than WB is The Mouse (aka Disney).  Regardless of who is 
cast, who isn't, who should be and who shouldn't be, Warner
is going to make a boatload of money on these films.  Think about 
most films based on books
they're not as good as the book, but people
still want to see them.

Kyle Said:
(how do we know Dan or the rest haven't been pigeonholed right
now or Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane etc, etc !!) 
Susan said:
Er, because Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane have had long-standing 
acting careers for years (ditto Maggie Smith, Gemma Jones, Miriam 
Margolyes, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman etc). I really don't think 
history will look back on Kenneth Branagh and say "ah, Lockhart" 
rather than "ah, Hamlet". As for Dan and the rest - well, that's 
debatable as to whether or not they've already been stereotyped. If 
they have, no wonder they want to get out now.

I say:
The British entertainment industry and the North American industry 
are different to the Extreme!  In England, a person can play the 
same character for years and years (David Jason in Only Fools and 
Horses for example), but yet still take on other roles and be 
successful (Pa Larkin in The Darling Buds of May).  In the US, if an 
actor plays the same role for more than 5-6 years, more often than 
not, he is pigeon-holed. (Alan Alda is one, Kelsey Grammer is 
another.)

Susan Said:
I'm sorry, but this is irking me more and more. You are acting as 
though these kids are our personal property, just because they're 
famous. They're kids, for crying out loud! I just gave you a bunch 
of examples for why they might not stay, you need to take that into 
consideration! If they decide they don't want to do it anymore - 
let's take Felton as an example, because he's close to or actually 
already has decided to quit - then it's unbelievably arrogant of us 
to say "Tom, we, people you've never met, know what's best for you. 
You must continue to do the Harry Potter movies." If he wants to be 
a fisherman, so what? It does blow, because he's a great Draco - I 
think he's one of three people in that film who were cast PERFECTLY -
 but to say he should be denied the same opportunities and freedom 
as any other child is horrible. I don't know if you have kids, but 
you'd kill yourself trying to see them happy, any parent would - 
what makes you think the Watsons, Feltons, Radcliffes and Grints are 
any different?

I say:
>From what I remember, Watson, Radcliffe and Grint signed on for just 
the three movies.  More than likely, they will re-negotiate their 
contract for GoF and OoP films.  The producers didn't want to
force the kids into making a decision that would affect them for ten 
years.  It's different for Coltrane and Rickman et al., as they
are grown, have perfectly successful careers and know that they 
would want to do the role for all seven movies.  The kids, however, 
are treated very differently over in England vs North America, once 
again, because of the differences in the industry.  In Britain, 
movie stars are treated rather differently.  Sure, there are the 
tabloids, but, from my experience, the right to privacy is somewhat 
different.  When I try to research actors as part of my job, I have 
a horrible time trying to find information on some British actors 
(Coltrane and Rickman aside, of course.  I challenge anyone to find 
me a biography of Robert Daws of Outside Edge
which also stars 
Timothy Spall
which is really good
).  All I'm
saying is that it's a different culture over there. Not better, not 
worse, just different.  Being Canadian, I am exposed to both on a 
regular basis.

Kyle said:
So I guess we should let Harry Potter be in the hands of Warner 
Brothers and we shouldnt have our voice heard becuase there going to 
do what they want regardless.>>

Susan Said:
No no, if you want to petition, go ahead. But as I've said above, 
I'm just warning you that you might waste an awful lot of effort 
over something we can't really change.

I say:
I think it's always worth it to try.  Who knows, perhaps it might 
reach the right person when the casting of GoF is happening.  Though 
I'm sure that the first cast will have first right ofrefusal
as they 
should.  Not that I advocate a full cast change of HRH, etc.  I 
think of some series that were successful with a leading actor 
change (James Bond) and some that weren't IMHO (Jack Ryan).

Kyle also said:
Why is Inspector Gadget going straight to home viewing instead of 
being in theatres???  Why is The never ending story in home viewing 
if its such a good film??  

Susan said:
I'd imagine it's because the script sucks. You are making the 
mistake many people are making - that the sequels can only get worse 
because that's what sequels do. As a rule, yes, that's what sequels 
do - but we already know the plot of the next two movies, and we 
know it's solid. The tough thing is getting all the plot in there, 
not trying desperately to fill because the plot is too flimsy. (Step 
forward, Cruel Intentions 2...)

I respond:
Sometimes, financially, it just makes sense to market it straight to 
video
it costs a lot of money to put a film out theatrically. 
The marketing costs are phenomenal!  (Example – a full page ad in 
Entertainment Weekly costs over $50,000 US – I don't have the
exact figure, but that rings right.  And that's just one ad in one 
publication!  LA Times charges big bucks for an ad as well
you
are looking at a marketing budget of at least $1,000,000 to do the 
US and Canada, not including television, promotional appearances, 
posters, etc etc etc.  Then they have to do it all over again on 
video.  If they go direct to video, they only have to spend the 
money once, and are more likely to break even/make a profit.  If a 
film tanks at the box office, then they still have to pay for the 
theatrical marketing as well as the video marketing.  Remember, 
Paramount tried to say that they lost money on Forrest Gump, even 
though it made over $400 million at the US box office.  Now, I
don't think they will have a problem with Harry Potter!

Kyle said:
In all likely hood will any of this actors really be famous and be 
able to go on behind Harry Potter??  I don't think so unless they 
really disappear for awhile and come back!  But even then it's 
difficult!  Not impossible but difficult

Susan Said:
Again, very true. That's why I think only one of the four principals 
will make it, probably Dan. (I'd've said Tom, but he's allegedly 
quitting acting altogether, not just HP) However, that's the kids 
I'm talking about - people only know them for HP, they've never done 
anything else. Hopefully you're talking about the same thing - if 
you're actually suggesting Alan Rickman or Gary Oldman or Maggie 
Smith will have trouble finding roles after Harry... 

I say:
I agree with Susan.  I think that the kids, if they decide that they 
want to pursue acting, will succeed.  For these young people to 
bring alive the spirit of Harry Potter at their young age, I think 
they will go far.  Hopefully, they will study at the Royal Academy 
of Dramatic Art, or Academy of Speech and Drama and get some serious 
experience on stage, which will help them to go far!

Remember, the kids have some serious acting ability surrounding them 
and hopefully, it will rub off on them:

Alan Rickman has won a BAFTA (British Academy Award), an Emmy, a 
Golden Globe, a Screen Actor's Guild Award, and nominated for 2 
Tonys (out of the two plays he was in on Broadway)
Robbie Coltrane has won 3 BAFTAs
Maggie Smith has won 2 Oscars, 5 BAFTAS, and 2 Golden Globes
Julie Walters has won 3 BAFTAS and nominated for two Oscars
Kenneth Branaugh has been nominated for 3 Oscars, won 2 BAFTAS, an 
Emmy
Miriam Margolyes has won a BAFTA
Richard Harris was nominated for two Oscars, won a Golden Globe,
John Cleese was nominated for an Oscar, Won 2 BAFTAS, an Emmy, 
Gary Oldman won a BAFTA
Timothy Spall has been nominated for three BAFTAS
Not to mention the number of nominations that I haven't
mentioned, 
or wins for film festivals, guilds, OBEs, etc!

We can only hope that Radcliffe, Watson, Grint and Felton are 
destined for greatness as these other actors are!

Leigh 
(Who is in the video industry and loves British entertainment.   and 
has had her copy of CoS on order with Amazon for months!)