[HPFGU-Movie] Musings on casting, actors and awards...was: The Importanc...

[LeeMunLim03 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/27/03 10:07:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
slaross at total.net writes:

> 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.


I agree on that

> 
> 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.)


Will see.

> 
> 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).


Yeah but the kids are not James bond.

> 
> 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!


No I agree with you on that.

> 
> 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!)


Me too!!


Kyle Longbottom 

Hufflepuff Prefect 

> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]